207 
Im7' 


:Jl?>g^y'' 


{]  0  II  \i  K  S  P  0  N  I)  E  N  C  E 


CONCERNING  THE 


PRESBYTERIAN 


TIIKOLOGIOIL   SE^[[XVRY 

Of  the  North- West, 

IJKTWEEN 

Professor  of  Theology, 

M!i.  JESSP:  L.  WILLIAMS, 

Director, 

VW    »     r  ).\LMlL'rEHS  iK    l)Ilil!.L:  UJi;  V, 

And  Others; 


l''oiinili'r  :iii<l     I'ni-i  r.'. 

REV.  ^^  L.  Ill  OK,  I).  I).. 
1'  )!•  II  'r  IVofessor  of  Thcolo_'  in  i 


"  IMPORTANT  CORRESPONDENCE," 


CONCERNING  THE 


PRESBYTERIAIsr 

THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY 

Of  the  North-West, 


BETWEEN 


REV.  WILLIS  LORD,  D.  D., 

Professor  of  Theology, 

JESSE  L.  WILLIAMS,  Esq., 

Director, 

TWO  COMiVIITTEES  OF  THE  DIRECTORY, 
AND  OTHERS, 


Mr.  CYRUS  H.  McCORMICK, 

Founder  and  Trustee, 

REV.  N.  L.  RICE,  D.  D., 

Former  Professor  of  Theology,  and  oihers. 


NEW  YORK: 

A.  C.  ROGERS,  Steam,  Book  and  Job  Printer,  142  Fulton  St. 

1869. 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVrr.^ITY  OF  ILL|w<^' 


"IMPORTANT   CORRESPONDENCE," 

COXCEEKING  THE 

PRESBYTERIAN 

THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

Of  the  North- West. 

J^^otn  the  North- Western  Presbyterian,  November  28,  1868. 

Messrs.  Editors: — Inclosed,  I  send  you  a  copy  of  a  letter 

from  a  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Theo- 

,^(  logical  Seminary  of  tlie  North- West,  notifying  me  of  the 

'■  election  of  Rev.  Mr.  Blackburn,  to  a  Professorship  in  the 

Seminary,  with  an  intimation  that  the  fourth  instalment  of 

^  my  endowment  fund  woidd  be  acceptable, — and  my  reply  to 

the  Committee. 

:i      I  ask  the  favor  of  the  publication  of  these  letters  in  tlie 

^_North  Western  Presbyterian.     I  liad  hoped  that  it  might 

~  not  become  necessary  for  me  to  appear  before  the  public 

in  connection  with  this  matter.    I  preferred  to  remain  quiet, 

thus  letting  the  experiment  undertaken  be  made  by  those 

r?who  had  by  superior  numbers  and  proffered  means,  wrested 

jfrom  its  original  friends  the  direction  and  management  of 

^the  Seminary. 

-c    At  different  times  heretofore  criticisms  on  my  course,  and 
Iraisrepresentations  of  my  position,  have  come  to  my  know- 
pledge,  while  I  have  remained  silent,  and  still  when  called 
•Sion  by  my  friends  have  responded,  as  now  shown.     Having 
^*reached  the  point  where,  in  my  judgment,  further  silence 
would  be  improper,  and  a  vindication  of  myself  becomes  a 
^uty,  I  offer  this  correspondence  to  the  public,  that  the 
^^acts  in  the  case  may  be  understood. 
Truly  yours, 

CYRUS  II.  Mccormick. 

Chicago,  Nov.  11  th,  1868. 


932202 


Chicago,  Illinois, 

October  IG,  18G8. 

Cyrus  II.  McCormicJc,  JEsq.^  New  York  City: 

Dear  Sir: — The  undersigned,  a  committee  appointed  by 
the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the 
North- West,  for  that  purpose,  have  the  pleasure  to  inform 
you  that  the  General  Assembly  at  its  sessions  in  Albany  in 
May  last,  appointed  the  Rev.  William  M.  Blackbui-n  to  the 
Professorshii)  of  Biblical  and  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the 
Seminary.  He  was  inaugurated  and  entered  upon  its  du- 
ties at  the  beginning  of  this  term.  He  promises  to  be  an 
able  and  efficient  Professor.  All  the  four  Professorships 
in  the  Seminary  are  now  filled. 

This  information  is  due,  in  view  of  the  arrangement 
heretofore  made,  in  regard  to  the  last  instalment  of  your 
noble  and  beneficent  gift  to  endow  the  Seminary. 

The  Institution  is  now  in  a  prosperous  cdhdition,  and  its 
fields  of  usefulness  rapidly  enlarging. 

Uniting  our  prayers  with  yours,  that  the  blessing  of  God 
may  rest  upon  it,  we  have  the  honor  to  remain, 

Yours,  very  fraternally, 

R.  G.  THOMPSON,  Kintyro;  111. 
C.  A.  SPRING. 


Chicago,  JVov.  17,  1868. 

Hev.  li.  G.  Thompson  and  C.  A.  Spring^  Sr.,  JEsq.^  Com- 
mittee : 

Gentlemen: — Your  letter  of  October  16, 1868,  was  duly 
received.  Circumstances  have  prevented  me  from  answer- 
ing it  sooner ;  and,  although  very  busily  occupied  since  my 
arrival  here  from  New  York,  on  business,  and  as  I  have 
been  approached  on  the  same  subject  by  the  present  col- 
lecting agent  of  the  Seminary  (Mr.  Traux,)  I  will  not 
longer  delay  an  answer. 


\ 


In  view  of  statements  which,  as  I  have  been  informed, 
have  been  made  to  your  Board  of  Directors,  I  had  not  sup- 
posed that  such  a  notice  to  me  would  be  considered  neces- 
sary. 

Learning,  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly at  St.  Louis,  in  1866,  that,  in  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of 
Directors  of  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  North-W  est, 
a  proposition  had  been  made  to  transfer  Dr.  Lord  from  the 
chair  of  History  in  this  Seminary  to  the  chair  of  Theology, 
I  decided  to  attend  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  for  the 
purpose  of  satisfying  myself  of  the  course  to  be  taken  by 
that  body,  and  if  possible,  of  preventing  the  proposed 
transfer,  by  making  the  Assembly  acquainted  with  the 
state  of  things  existing  at  Chicago,  as  between  Dr.  Lord 
and  myself  and  friends,  bearing  upon  that  question.  I  ac- 
cordingly, when  there,  sought  an  interview  with  Mr.  Jesse 
L.  Williams,  whom  I  knew  personally,  and  who  I  was 
informed  was  the  most  active  and  leading  member  of  the 
Assembly  in  connection  with  the  action  sought  in  relation 
to  the  affairs  of  the  Seminary  at  Chicago.  A  large  mi- 
nority of  the  Board  of  Directors  had  protested  against  the 
transfer  of  Dr.  Lord,  at  the  previous  meeting  of  the 
Board,  on  the  ground  that  such  transfer  would  be  far  from 
satisfactory  to  the  friends  of  the  Seminary  who  bad  con- 
tributed to  its  endowment,  and  sustained  and  carried  for- 
ward the  Institution  successfully  to  that  time,  as  well  as  to 
myself,  no  friendly  intercourse  liaving  existed  been  Dr. 
XiOrd  and  me  for  some  years.  I  informed  Mr.  Williams  of 
this  fact,  explaining  to  him  somewhat  the  character  of  the 
differences  which  had  existed  between  Dr.  Lord  and  myself 
and  friends,  who  had  co-operated  with  me  in  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Seminary,  adding  that  I  hoped  the  General  As- 
sembly Avould  not  place  Dr.  Lord  in  that  chair ;  that  I  felt 
that  the  interests  of  the  Institution  would  not  be  thereby 
promoted ;  and,  as  that  chair  bore  my  name,  and  was  the 
only  recognition  of  the  sort  of  my  connection  with  the 
Seminary,  I  trusted  that  circumstance,  as  well  as  others, 
would  be  entitled  to  consideration  in  placing  a  professor  in 
that  chair. 


I  may  here  state  tliat,  among  other  things,  on  one  occa- 
sion, in  tlic  meeting  of  the  IJoard  of  Directors,  Dr.  Lord 
denounced  the  manner  in  Avhich  my  donation  had  been 
made  to  the  Assembly,  saying  that  if  the  Assembly  had 
understood  its  terms,  it  woidd  not  liave  been  accepted. 
This  denunciation  referred  to  the  application  of  $25,000  to 
each  professorship,  a  point  which  could  not  possibly  have 
been  misunderstood  by  the  Assembly,  and  to  which  no  ob- 
jection was  taken.  It  had  some  bearing  upon  his  interest 
<at  the  time  in  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  en- 
dowment fund. 

On  another  occasion  when  Dr.  Lord  was  a  candidate  for 
the  pastorate  of  the  Xorth  Church,  at  a  meeting  of  the  con- 
gregation lor  the  consideration  of  that  question,  he  made  a 
gross  attack  upon  me  without  cause,  in  my  absence,  as  I 
was  informed,  when  lie  stated  that  if  he  were  to  expose  all 
that  he  knew  in  reference  to  some  parties  in  that  church,  it 
would  tear  that  church  to  pieces.  This  threat  was  heard  by 
ix  large  majority  of  the  audience  then  present  with  aston- 
ishment and  disapprobation,  and  his  course  led  ultimately 
to  the  division  of  the  Xorth  Church,  and  to  a  number  of 
his  friends  going  oft'  and  organizing  themselves  into  a  rival 
congi'cgation. 

I  am  induced  to  state  these  matters,  in  order  that  the  ex- 
isting relations  between  Dr.  Lord  and  myself  nuiy  be  the 
better  understood,  supposing,  as  1  have,  that  there  are  fe\>' 
men  who  would  be  willing  to  occui)y  the  chair  in  question 
as  he  has  done,  under  such  circumstances, 

I  further  stated  to  Mr.  Williams  that  Henry  Day,  Esq., 
one  of  Dr.  Kice's  elders,  from  his  church  in  New  York,  felt 
authorized  to  nominate  him  in  the  Assembly  for  that  chair, 
to  which  he  had  been  elected  at  Indianapolis,  when  the 
Seminary  was  first  constituted,  and  which  he  had  resigned 
on  receiving  a  call  to  the  Fifth  Avenue  church  in  New 
York,  (his  health  not  being  equal  to  his  labor  of  teaching, 
preaching  and  editing  the  J^xpositor,)  and  that  I  hoped 
the  Assembly  would  be  disposed  to  restore  him  to  that 
chair,  as  I  supposed  no  more  suitable  and  advantageous  se- 
lection coidd  be  made  for  it ;  and  more  especially  as  Mr. 


Day  was  prepared,  in  the  event  of  his  election,  to  give  a 
pledge  for  a  largo  addition  to  the  endowment  fund  for  that 
chair,  from  his  congregation. 

Mr.  "Williams  replied  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  Assembly 
would  not  be  disposed  to  elect  Di*.  Rice  to  that  chair,  and 
that  it  was  not  decided  to  transfer  Dr.  Lord  to  it.  He  said 
that  Dr.  McMaster  was  spoken  of  in  the  Assembly  for  the 
chair,  and  asked  whether  he  Avould  be  more  acceptable  than 
Dr.  Lord.  I  replied  that  I  thought  Dr.  McMaster  would  be 
more  acceptable,  in  part  for  the  reasons  stated ;  but  that 
Dr.  McMaster  had  been  nominated  in  opposition  to  Dr. 
Rice  at  Lidianapolis,  when  Dr.  Rice  was  elected  over  him  on 
the  ground,  I  believe,  that  Dr.  Rice  better  represented  the 
views  of  those  undertaking  the  support  of  the  Seminary,  in 
that  they  were  opposed  to  agitating  the  church  by  the  in- 
troduction of  political  questions  ; — that  I  supposed  Dr. 
McMaster  to  be  a  consistent,  able  and  honest  man,  but  still 
differing,  as  before  stated,  from  the  views  of  those  sustain- 
ing the  Seminary,  and  who  had  so  well,  under  Providence, 
brought  it  to  its  then  prosperous  and  promising  condition. 

In  this  connection,  1  urged,  to  some  extent,  the  propriety 
of  the  election  of  Dr.  Rice,  but  Mr.  Williams,  conceding  all 
that  was  claimed  for  what  had  been  done  up  to  that  time  by 
"  our  side,"  as  he  said,  and  remarking  that  full  credit  was 
due  to  us  for  all  that  had  hecn  done,  still  insisted  that  tliey, 
not  having  co-operated  with  us  before,  considered  it  due  to 
them  that  they  should  have  an  opportunity  to  come  for- 
ward and  do  their  part,  our  part  having  been  so  well  done. 
They  considered,  he  said,  that  there  was  as  much  remaining 
to  be  done  to  complete  the  w^ork  of  tne  Seminary  as  had 
already  been  done  by  us ;  and  that,  to  do  so,  they  felt  tliey 
"  should  have  the  Chair  of  Theology,  and  a  good  xcorking 
majority  in  the  Board  of  Directors^ 

I  then  remarked  to  him  that  if  they  persisted  in  carrying 
out  their  plans  as  proposed,  and  in  thus  setting  us  aside  in 
disregard  of  our  wishes,  axvdi  preventing  us  from  continuing 
our  work,  especially  when  we  had  always  been  desirous 
that  they  should  co-operate  with  us  in  support  of  the  sem- 
inary, they  would  of  course  not  expect  me  to  pay  over  the 


remaining  fourth  instalment  of  the  endowment,  then  unpaid.. 
To  which  he  replied  that  there  would  be  no  difficulty  upon 
that  point,  as  they  had  on  their  side  men  of  wealth  and 
ample  means,  by  whose  contributions  they  proposed  to 
endow  the  Chair  of  Theology  for  Dr.  McMaster,  if  elected, 
with  the  sum  of  $50,000,  and  that  Dr.  McMaster  would  not 
accept  the  chair  otherwise  than  with  the  understanding  that 
it  would  be  endowed  by  his  friends.  Mr.  Williams  said 
he  would  communicate  my  suggestions  to  the  Committee 
on  Seminaries,  but  that  he  had  little  expectation  they  would 
be  adopted  by  the  Assembly.  And  he  afterwards  informed 
me  that  no  change  could  be  made,  and  that  Dr.  McMaster 
Avould  receive  the  nomination. 

This  is  the  substance  of  the  conversation  between  Mr. 
Williams  and  myself,  and,  as  near  as  I  can  give  it,  the  lan- 
guage that  was  used  ;  and  after  the  election  of  Dr.  McMas- 
ter, I  prepared  a  statement  of  the  conference  between  Mr. 
Williams  and  myself,  together  with  the  action  of  the  Assem- 
bly on  the  subject,  for  publication,  but,  with  the  advice  of 
friends,  finally  concluded  to  make  no  publication  of  the 
matter. 

Feeling,  as  stated,  that  no  further  call  would  be  made  on 
me  for  this  (fourth)  instalment  of  my  endowment  ($25,000), 
I  soon  after  donated  to  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  of 
Virginia,  for  the  endowment  of  one  of  its  Professorships, 
$30,000,  not  desiring  to  withdraw  for  my  personal  use  any 
portion  of  what  I  had  donated  for  the  benefit  of  the  church. 
It  appears,  however,  that  certain  of  the  Faculty  and 
Directory  of  the  Seminary  have  been  in  ignorance  of  the 
foregoing  facts,  or  are  disposed  to  look  no  higher  tlian  the 
law  in  the  case,  expressing  the  opinion  that  I  am  "  bound 
to  pay  this  instalment."  Inquiries  have  also  been  made  of 
the  Trustees  upon  this  point.  But,  in  view  of  what  has 
been  said,  I  now  submit  whether  this  proscription  of  the 
Directors,  as  well  as  of  myself  and  friends,  wholly  upon  polit- 
ical grounds,  does  not  justly  work  a  forfeiture  of  the  whole- 
endowment  fimd — instead  of  my  being  subjected  to  a  calf 
from  you,  under  the  circumstances,  for  further  funds. 

When  my  endowment  was  accepted  by  the  General  As- 


sembly,  it  is  well  known  that  a  large  majority  of  the  Old 
School  Presbyterian  church  were  opposed,  as  I  have  before 
said,  to  the  agitation  in  the  church  of  political  questions. 
My  own  humble  views  on  that  subject  were  known  to  agree 
with  those  opposed  to  such  agitation,  as  represented  by  Dr. 
Rice.  The  General  Assembly — as  I  believe  is  universally 
the  case  when  not  inconsistent  with  duty — in  accepting 
such  donation,  elected  Professors  and  Directors  to  carry 
forward  the  Institution,  agreeing  essentially  in  these  views. 
At  that  time  Dr.  Lord  was  understood  to  be  in  perfect 
accord  with  them.  I  have  always  accorded  to  others  the 
same  liberty  of  opinion  claimed  for  myself,  and  hava,  had 
nothing  whatever  to  say  in  the  selection  of  Directors  or 
agents  of  the  Seminary,  at  any  time,  not  even  knowing  the 
men,  and  I  challenge  the  production  of  testimony  to  show 
proscription  in  any  case  while  the  Seminary  was  in  the 
hands  of  its  founders.  The  General  Assembly  acted  then 
upon  the  principle  that  justice  and  equity,  to  say  nothing  of 
Christian  courtesy,  require  that  due  regard  should  be  had  to- 
the  wishes  and  sentiments  of  members  of  the  church  who- 
have  placed  in  her  hands  the  means  of  founding  and  sustain- 
ing important  institutions  in  her  gift.  The  correctness  of  this- 
principal  was  fully  recognized  by  Dr.  McMaster  at  the  time? 
of  his  election,  his  conduct  appearing  in  marked  contrast 
with  that  of  the  present  incumbent,  for,  while  Dr.  Lord  ad- 
vocated before  the  Seminary  committees  of  the  Assemblies 
of  1866  and  1867  his  transfer  to  the  chair  of  theology.  Dr. 
McMaster  had  the  manliness  to  refuse  it  unless  endowed  by 
his  friends ! 

And  as  my  political  opinions  were  thought  of  sufficient 
consequence  to  be  referred  to  in  an  address  by  the  Modera- 
tor (Dr.  Stanton)  of  the  Assembly  at  St.  Louis,  though  not 
quite  accurately,  I  may  add  that  they  have  always  been 
the  same  as  when  the  endowment  fund  offered  by  me  waa 
accepted  by  the  General  Assembly ;  and  as  they  were  at 
that  time  Democratic,  they  have  at  no  time  since  been  more 
than  Democratic,  while  throughout  the  troubles  of  parties 
during  the  Avar,  they  were  uniformly  for  the  union,  as  was 
well  known  during  the  political  canvas  in  '64,  when  I  was 


^ 


10 

the  candidate  for  the  Democratic  party  for  Congress  in  this 
district.  And  as  there  was  no  reason  for  proscription  on 
political  grounds  when  my  donation  was  accejited,  there 
can  liave  been  no  good  reason  for  proscription  on  that 
ground  at  any  time  since. 

After  tlie  death  of  Mr.  McMaster,  and  the  faihire  to  raise 
the  sum  anticipated  for  tlie  .endowment  of  tliat  chair,  Dr. 
Lord  was  transferred  to  it  at  the  meeting  of  the  next  Assem- 
bly, at  Cincinnati,  leaving  the  chair  of  Biblical  and  Eccles- 
iastical history  unoccupied  during  the  past  year. 

Prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  at  Albany, 
residing  in  New  York,  I  was  written  to  by  friends  in 
Chicago,  iiupiiring  whether,  in  the  event  of  being  able  at 
the  meeting  of  that  Assembly  to  elect  a  Professor  to  the 
chair  acceptable  to  the  old  friends  of  the  Seminary,  and  to 
restore  the  Directors  displaced  to  their  former  positions 
upon  the  Board,  and  to  procure  some  satisfactory  giiai'antees 
against  similar  unjust  interferences  in  the  future,  I  would 
be  disposed  to  return  to  my  original  position  in  connection 
with  the  Seminary,  and,  of  course,  to  pay  over  the  fourth 
instalment  of  the  endowment  fund.  To  which  I  replied,  if 
a  satisfactory  arrangement  of  that  sort  could  be  effected,  I 
would  not  only  willingly,  but  cheerfully  do  so ;  that  Dr. 
Rice  was,  as  I  was  informed,  in  the  enjoyment  of  better 
Iiealth  than  for  some  time  previous,  and  I  had  no  doubt 
coald  be  induced  to  accej)t  the  professorship  of  theology  if 
re-elected  to  it.  He  was  accordingly  nominated  for  tlie 
vacant  chair  in  the  Assembly  at  Albany,  when  Dr.  Thomas 
was  nominated  in  opposition  to  him.  And  wlien  it  was 
thought  at  a  later  day  by  some  of  his  friends  that  he  (Dr. 
Rice)  .would  not  be  elected,  they  consented  to  withdraw 
his  nanie  and  substitute  for  it  that  of  Dr.  Skinner,  a  man  of 
acknowledged  ability  and  learning.  But  Rev.  jNfr.  Black- 
burn was  elected  in  opposition  to  him. 

Your  letter,  in  effect,  calling  upon  me  for  the  payment  of 
the  fourth  instalment  of  my  endowment  fund  has  seemed  to 
me  to  make  it  proper  to  refer,  as  I  have  done,  to  so  much  of 
the  past  history  of  these  transactions. 

The  Board  of  Directors  were  long  since  apprized  by  the 


11 

Trustees  of  the  Seminary  of  what  occurred  at  St.  Louis,  as 
above  related — of  the  statement  made  to  me  by  Mr.  Wil- 
liams, tliat  I  would  be  exonerated  from  the  payment  of  this 
instalment,  and  of  my  unAvillinguess  to  pay  it,  accordingly. 
And  I  understand  that  Mr.  Williams  has^himself  confirmed 
the  foregoing  statement  at  one  of  the  meetings  of  the 
Directors.  It  only  remains  for  me  to  add  that,  as  the  mat- 
iiei's  in  controversy  remain  unchanged,  I  cannot  itndei'stand, 
as  intimated  above,  why  this  application  is  made  to  me. 

I  need  not  say  that  my  interest  in  the  success  of  so  great 
an  enterprise,  labored  for  with  so  ranch  interest  and  anxiety, 
remains  unabated.  And  if,  as  stated  to  me  by  Mr.  Truax, 
the  Seminary  is  now  embarassed  for  funds,  and  with  no  rea- 
sonable prospect  of  obtaining  them — some  of  the  few  sub- 
scribers to  the  McMaster  endowment  refusing  to  pay 
because  of  the  failure  to  raise  the  150,000  proposed — in  this 
condition  of  things  I  would  reaffirm  my  willingness  to  co- 
operate in  the  support  of  the  Seminary,  and  my  desire  to 
assist  in  placing  it  on  a  solid  financial  basis,  if  the  General 
Assembly  will  provide  for  such  a  corps  of  Professors  as  the 
original  one,  and  the  corresponding  "  working  majority  "  of 
Directors  demanded  and  taken  from  us  "  by  the  other  side," 
and  with  proper  assurances  of  noninterference  in  the  future. 
In  this  case  I  should  be  disposed  not  only  to  pay  the  $25,000, 
but  to  add  besides  $5,000  to  the  endowment  of  each  Pro- 
fessorshij) — considered  by  the  I>oard  also  important. 

Finally,  I  submit  whether — this  issue  having  been  made 
by  "  the  new  friends  of  the  Seminary" — first,  in  their  refu- 
sal to  co-operate  with  its  old  friends  and  founders ;  and, 
second,  in  their  turning  them  out  and  taking  possession 
themselves — it  is  not  jicst  that  tliey  meet  them  in  a  spirit 
of  Christian  equality  and  fairness,  and  either  accept  this 
proposition  or  refund  (without  interest)  the  $75,000  paid  l)y 
me. 

Respectfully  yours,  <fec., 

CYRUS  11.  McCORMICK. 


12 


Editorial  from  the  Presbyter^ 

Cincinnati,  December  2,  1868, 

MR.  M'CORmCK'S  LETTER. 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Cyrus  M'Cormick,  on  our  first  page,  will 
attract  earnest  attention.  Several  years  ago  the  Board  of 
Directors  agreed  that  as  there  were  but  three  professors- 
in  the  institution,  Mr.  M'Cormick  might  be  released  from 
paying  interest  on  the  $25,000  of  his  endowment  until  a  fourth 
professor  was  elected.  October  16, 1868,  the  Committee  of  the 
Directors,  appointed  for  the  purpose,  notified  Mr.  M'Cormick 
of  the  election  of  Mr.  Blackburn  to  the  vacant  chair,  in  order 
that  Mr.  M'Cormick  might  pay  his  last  125,000,  or  the  inter- 
est on  it,  for  the  support  of  the  new  incumbent.  The  letter 
we  publish  to-day  is  Mr.  M'Cormick's  reply.  He  claims 
that  he  had  an  understanding  with  Jesse  L.  Williams,  when 
Dr.  McMaster  was  elected  at  St..  Louis  in  1866,  that  no  more 
was  to  be  expected  of  him.  We  heard  Mr.  AVilliams'  state- 
ment before  the  Board  in  regard  to  his  conversation  with 
Mr.  M'Cormick  at  St.  Louis,  and  if  we  understood  Mr.  W., 
then  Mr.  M'C.  misunderstood  him.  Mr.  M'Cormick  claims 
that  there  was  an  understanding  that  his  and  Dr.  Rice's 
views  were  opposed  to  political  action  in  the  church  whea 
his  donation  was  accepted ;  that  he  has  not  changed ;  that- 
Dr.  Lord  was  understood  to  be  "in  perfect  accord  with 
them,"  and  regard  should  be  paid  to  the  wishes  of  donors  in 
placing  persons  on  foundations  made  by  them.  He  is  willing 
to  pay  the  unpaid  part  of  his  pledge  and  add  twenty  thou- 
sand dollai-s,  if  he  can  have  such  men  as  were  elected  at 
Indianapolis  in  1858,  Dr.  Lord  excepted.  Mr  M'Cormick'» 
letter  will  produce  a  sensation.     We  have  nothing  to  say. 


13 


From  North  Westerji  Presbyterian, 

December,  19,  1868. 

Messrs.  Editors:  The  letter  of  Cyrus  H.  McConnick,  Esq., 
•published  in  your  issue  of  the  28th  Nov.,  calls  for  correction 
in  some  particulars. 

Let  me  say,  first,  that  Mr.  M.  giees  me  far  more  credit 
than  is  due  for  influence  in  the  affairs  of  the  seminary,  and 
attaches  quite  too  much  importance  to  our  brief  interview 
during  the  session  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1866.  Soon 
after  being  informed  by  one  of  his  friends  that  he  desired 
to  see  me,  I  met  him  in  the  public  hall  of  the  Southern  Hotel, 
where  both  of  us  lodged,  not  in  any  sense  as  a  negotiator, 
•or  representative  of  the  Directors,  nor  of  any  special  policy, 
but  in  the  spirit,  I  trust,  of  that  Christian  courtesy  due  to  a 
•gentleman  who  had  contributed  so  liberally  to  the  endow- 
ment of  the  seminary.  That  any  remarks  made  by  either 
of  us  at  that  interview  should  have  been  afterwards  written 
down,  and  considered  of  so  grave  import  as  to  enter  into 
the  question  of  payment  or  non-payment  of  an  obligation 
entered  into  for  the  endowment,  surprises  me.  It  must  be 
manifest  that  I  was  clothed  with  no  authority  to  speak  for 
the  Assembly,  the  Directors,  or  Trustees,  and  I  certainly 
•assumed  none. 

My  recollection  differs  from  his  in  several  particulars : 

1  St.  Mh  McCormick,  as  he  states,  remarked,  in  view  of  au 
apprehended  result  of  the  Assembly's  deliberations,  that 
*'they  would  not,  of  course,  expect  me  to  pay  any  more." 
To  this  remark  I  am  very  confident  I  made  no  response 
whatever.  What  reply  could  I  have  made?  Assent  to 
his  conclusion,  by  a  Director  in  an  institution  yet  greatly 
needing  his  contribution  for  the  support  of  the  professors, 
would  have  been  indiscreet,  to  use  the  mildest  term.  Dissent, 
leading  certainly  to  an  argument,  might  have  been  consid 
■ered  under  the  circumstances,  uncivil,  as  it  certainly  would 


14 


have  been  unavailing  at  that  particular  juncture.  In  relating 
this  remark  of  Mr.  M.  to  the  friends  of  the  seminary,  tlie  next 
day,  I  distinctly  stated  the  fact  that  I  made  no  response. 

2nd  In  another  part  of  his  letter  lie  speaks  of  "the  state- 
ment made  to  me  by  Mr.  Williams  that  I  would  be  exone- 
rated from  the  payment  of  this  installment."  Here  his  recol- 
lection is  certainly  at  fault.  No  such  statement  was  made 
by  me.  He  must  have  confounded  my  convei*sation  with 
that  of  some  other  j^erson  whose  views  on  the  seminary 
(question  corresponded  with  his  own.  Having  myself  no 
authority  to  release  any  party  from  any  moneyed  obligation 
to  the  seminary,  and  desiring  rather  to  increase  than  dimin- 
ish its  fiiiuls,  it  is  not  supposnble  that  I  would  inform  any 
donor  that  he  would  be  released  or  exonerated  i'roni  ])aynient. 

3rd.  Mr.  McCormick  seems  also  to  have  been  informed 
that  I  confirmed  his  statement,  as  above  quoted,  at  one  of 
the  meetings  of  Directors.  His  informant  misapprehended 
me  in  this  case  also.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Directors,  not 
long  after  the  vacant  chair  was  filled  by  the  election  of  Dr. 
MacMaster,  a  member  proposed  that  a  letter  be  written  to 
]S[r.  McCormick,  informing  him  of  the  filling  of  the  chair, 
Avith  a  view,  of  course,  to  the  payment  of  the  endowment. 
To  this  I  made  some  objection,  on  the  ground  that  it  would 
be  better  to  defer  this  call  on  INIr.  M.  until  our  new  agent 
had  made  further  progress  in  the  collection  of  funds  from 
others,  or  words  of  this  puii)ort.  From  this  remark  the 
inference  may  have  been  drawn  by  some  one  that  I  consid- 
ered Mr.  M.  would  be  released  from  the  payment  of  tlie 
endowment.  I  certainly  did  not  intend  to  be  so  understood. 
On  another  occasion  in  the  Board,  I  think  Avhen  the  Trustees' 
lieport  of  April  1st,  1867,  was  read,  I  recollect  having  ex- 
pressed the  belief  that  Mr.  M.  would,  in  his  own  time,  pay 
the  endowment. 

4th.  Mr.  McCormick  seems  to  have  underetood  me  as  re- 
sponding to  his  remark  that  "of  course  they  will  not  expect 
me  to  pay  any  more,"  by  saying,  "there  would-be  no  diffi- 
culty on  that  point,  as  they  had  on  their  side  men  of  Avealth 
and  ample  means,  by  whose  contributions  they  pro2)osed  to- 
endow  the  chair  of  Dr.  MacMaster,  if  elected,  with  the  sum 


of  $50,000."  Althougli  this  is  not  very  importuut,  yet  I 
certainly  believe  that  I  gave  no  sui-h  flattering  view,  for  I 
expected  the  agent  Avould  find  very  great  difficulty  amid  the 
divided  sentiment  of  that  period  in  raising  tlie  fifty  thousand 
dollars  proposed,  to  say  nothing  of  the  funds  needed  for  secu- 
ring buildings.  There  was  also  misa2)prehension  as  to  the 
endowment  of  $50,000  for  Dr.  MacMaster's  chair.  That 
sum  had  been  named  as  an  immediate  eflfort  in  view,  but 
twenty  thousand  dollars  of  it  was,  in  my  own  mind,  to 
supplement  the  other  chairs.  Dr.  Mac^NIaster's  frugal  liabits 
required  no  such  support  as  indicated.  While  his  friends 
supposed  he  would  not  accept  without  bringing  with  him, 
as  their  contribution,  the  basis  of  his  own  support,  they 
ju-esumed  also  that  he  would  not  expect  more  than  his  co- 
professors.  He  was  at  the  time  600  miles  distant,  probably 
knowing  nothing  of  the  movement  for  his  restoration  to  the 
chair  of  Theology,  which  for  ten  years  he  had  occupied  in 
the  same  Seminary  when  under  the  control  of  the  western 
synods. 

One  purpose  in  my  remarks  was,  if  possible,  to  reconcile 
Mr.  McCormick  to  the  choice  about  to  be  made  by  the  As- 
sembly, I  assured  hira  that  when  he  came  to  know  Dr. 
McMaster  he  would  admire  him  as  a  model  Christian  gen- 
tleman, of  many  noble  characteristics  as  a  man,  and  an 
instructor  in  Theology  of  very  eminent  attainments. 

The  delay  in  making  this  statement  has  been  caused  by 
absence  from  home  in  the  discharge  of  public  duties. 

J.  L.  WILLIAMS. 

Fort  Wayne,  Bee  9,  18G8. 


16 


Editorial  from  tlie  Presbyter. 

Cincinnati,  Dec.  23,  1868. 
MR.  McCORMICK  AND  MR.  WILLIAIMS. 

Wc  ask  attention  to  the  letter  of  Jesse  L.  Williams,  in 
another  column,  in  response  to  Mr.  McCormick's  letter, 
which  we  published  in  the  Presbyter  of  December  2'. 

Mr.  McCormick  represents  himself  as  saying  at  St.  Louis 
to  Mr.  Williams,  in  view  of  the  apprehended  result  of  the 
action  of  the  Assembly  in  electing  Dr.  McMaster  :  "  Tliey 
would  not,  of  course,  expect  me  (Mr.  McCormick)  to  pay 
any  more,"  and  Mr.  Williams  quotes  this  language  without 
taking  any  exception  to  it.  We  venture  to  remind  Mr. 
Williams  of  what  took  place  when  at  St.  Louis  he  reported 
his  conversation  with  Mr.  McCormick  to  us  and  several 
other  brethren.  Mr.  Williams  reported  Mr.  McCormick  not 
as  saying,  "  They  will  not  expect  me  to  pay  any  more," 
but  as  saying,  "  They  will  not  expect  any  more  of  me." 
We  at  once  said, "  lie  may  mean  by  this  remark  that  we 
must  not  expect  any  more  than  his  bond,  or  that  we  must 
not  expect  of  him  any  more  than  he  has  paid."  Mr.  Wil- 
liams replied,  "  Yes  ;  I  made  no  response,  however,  to  the 
remark."  We  are  confident,  moreover,  that  when  Mr.  Wil- 
liams referred  on  two  occasions^  in  meetings  of  the  Direct- 
ors, to  his  conversation  with  Mr.  ^IcCormick,  he  gave  the 
same  report.  The  matter  came  up  on  one  occasion  in  the 
Board  of  Directors  in  April,  1867,  when  considering  the 
report  of  the  Trustees  to  the  Directors,  in  which  is  the  fol- 
lowing clause:  "Mr.  McCormick,  as  we  are  credibly  in- 
formed, intends  to  contest  the  demand  for  any  further  pay- 
ment from  him  on  his  endowment  fund,  in  view  of  the 
action  and  treatment  he  received  at  St.  Louis  during  the  ses- 
sion of  the  General  Assembly."  After  hearing  Mr.  Williams 
the  Directors  say  in  their  report  to  the  Assembly :  "  Nor 


17 

can  the  Board  believe  that  Mr.  McCormick  intends,  as  sug- 
gested in  the  report  of  the  Trustees,  to  contest  the  demand 
for  any  further  payment  from  him  on  his  endowment  fund, 
in  view  of  the  action  and  treatment  he  received  at  St.  Louis 
during  the  session  of  the  Assembly  last  year."  If  the 
Directors  had  understood  that  Mr.  McCormick  meant  by 
liis  remark  to  Mr.  Williams  that  he  must  not  be  expected 
"  to  pay  any  more,"  they  would  not  have  adopted  the  lan- 
guage above  employed  in  their  report  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly. They  regarded  his  laiiguage  as  susceptible  of  the 
interpretation — ^''Expect  no  inore  of  me  than  my  bond'''' — 
iind  they  felt  bound  to  so  understand  him  imtil  they  heard 
directly  and  definitely  from  him ;  inasmuch  as  the  payment 
of  his  last  instalment  was  deferred,  by  arrangement  with 
himself,  until  the  fourth  chair  Avas  filled. 


From  the  Cincinnati  Presbyter^  Jan.  Qtli,  18G9. 

DR.  LORD  TO  MR.  McCOr.MICK. 

Chicago,  December  19,  186S. 
Mr.  Cyrus  II.  Mc  Cormich  : 

SiK : — You  have  just  given  to  the  public  a  letter  concern- 
ing your  obligations  to  the  Theological  Seminary  of  tlie 
North- West.  It  consists  so  largely  of  views  and  statements 
which  relate  to  me  personally,  and  wliicli  at  tlie  same  time 
fio  deeply  effect,  not  only  individual  honor,  but  also  public 
truth  and  virtue,  that  I  feel  constrained  to  set  forth  such 
counter  views  and  statements  as  herein  follow : 

In  the  month  of  May,  1859,  you  appeared  in  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  then  holding  its  an- 
nual sessions  in  the  city  of  Indianapolis,  Ind.  In  that  pre- 
sence, and  upon  your  own  motion,  you  offered  to  donate  to 
the  Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary  of  the  North-west 
the  sum  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  on  these  condi- 
tions, viz.: 
2 


18 

Tliat  the  General  Assembly  (1)  accept  and  take  charge  of 
said  Seminary  ;  (2)  locate  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  or  within 
one  and  a  half  miles  of  its  limits ;  and  (3)  hold  your  dona- 
tion as  a  perpetual  endowment  to  be  used  exclusively  for 
the  support  of  four  professorships. 

These  were  the  sole  conditions.  In  your  bond,  executed 
subsequently  to  this  ofter,  it  is  fuitlier,  and  properly,  pro- 
vided, that  if  at  any  time  the  Seminary  shall  cease,  or  shall 
cease  to  be  an  institution  for  the  training  of  students  for  the 
Christian  ministry,  this  endowment  of  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars  shall  revert  to  you  or  your  heirs. 

This  offer  "was  felt  to  be  generous.  It  seemed  to  indicate 
not  only  large  means,  but  also  large  ideas.  Men  were  con- 
scious of  an  impulse  to  place  you  among  jjublic  benefactors. 
Tlie  General  Assembly  accepted  the  offer ;  expressed  to  you 
its  cordial  thanks,  and  took  immediate  measures  to  carry 
your  propositions  into  effect.  What  followed,  in  the  pro- 
gress of  the  matter,  and  so  far  as  is  important  to  my  pre- 
sent purpose,  I  will  present  in  tiie  following  extracts  from  a 
paper  wliich  bears  your  name  and  seal,  viz.; 

"  Whereas,  the  said  General  Assembly  did  accept  the  said 
offer  of  the  said  Cyrus  II.  McCormick,  and  in  consideration 
thereof,  and  other  considerations  thereunto  moving,  did  pro- 
vide for  the  location  of  the  said  seminary  within  the  said 
limits  and  city  of  Chicago ;  and 

"  Whereas  the  said  Board  of  Directors  of  said  seminary 
did  locate  said  seminary  as  aforesaid,  in  consideration  of  said 
donation  by  said  McCormick,  and  accept  the  same  as  an  en- 
dowment fund  for  the  professorships  established  in  said 
seminary  by  the  said  General  Assembly. 

"  Now,  therefore,  in  consideration  of  the  acceptance  and 
taking  charge  of  said  Theological  Seminary,  by  the  said 
General  Assembly  and  the  location  of  the  same  by  the  said 
General  Assembly  and  Board  of  Directors  of.  said  seminary^ 
at  the  place  aforesaid ;  and 

"  In  further  consideration  of  tlie  acceptance  by  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  of  the  Old  School  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  of  said  sum  of    one    hundred 


19 

thousand  dollars,  as  an  endowment  fund  cxrlusivi-ly  of  the 
j)rofessorships  in  said  seminary,  as  aforesaid  : 

"I,  the  said  Cyrus  II,  MeCormick,  of  tlie  city  of  Chicago, 
county  of  Cook,  and  state  of  Illinois,  do  hereby  donate  the 
same  accordingly;  and  am  therefore  held  and  firndy  bound 
unto  the  trustees  of  the  said  Presbyterian  Theological 
Seminary  of  the  Xorth-Avest  and  their  successors  for  tlie 
same  as  aforesaid ;  and  by  these  presents  promise,  agree  and 
bind  myself,  my  heirs,  executoi's,  administrators  and  as- 
signs, to  pay  to  the  said  trustees  and  their  successors  in 
office,  for  said  seminary,  as  aforesaid,  the  sum  of  one  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars,  in  four  equal  annual  instalments,  the 
first  of  Avhicli  is  payable  on  the  14th  day  of  September, 
1860;  and  on  the  l^th  day  of  September  annually  there- 
after, with  the  privilege  of  paying  said  instalments  or  either 
of  them,  before  said  days  herein  named,  at  the  option  of 
said  McCormick,  his  heirs,  executors,  administrators  or  as- 
signs, with  interest,  payable  annually  at  the  rate  of  six  per 
cent,  per  annum  on  each  instalment." 

All  this  was  done  in  the  year  1859.  On  its  part  the  Ge- 
neral Assembly,  from  that  day  to  tliis,  has  performed  its 
engagements  in  letter  and  spirit.  On  your  part  there  has 
been,  for  some  reason,  a  failure.  At  the  end  of  nine  years 
your  bond  is  not  paid ;  and  not  only  so,  but  now,  at  length, 
through  the  public  press,  and  over  your  own  signature,  you 
[)ropose  to  repudiate  so  much  of  your  obligation  as  remains 
unfulfilled. 

So  grave  an  act  as  respects  law  and  morals,  ought  to 
have  clear  and  invincible  reasons.  They  should,  at  least, 
be  such  as  will  palliate,  if  they  cannot  justify  it.  What 
then  must  be  the  surprise  of  all  thoughtful  and  candid  men 
when  they  read  your  letter.  You  plead,  and  you  can 
plead,  no  viohUion  or  even  neglect  of  compact  on  the  part 
of  the  General  Assembly.  That  venerable  body  has  done 
its  whole  duty.  Your  only  avowed  reasons  for  dishonoring 
your  bond  are  your  personal  feelings  toward  myself,  and 
an  alleged  private  conversation  with  the  Hon.  J.  L.  Wil- 
liams ;  neither  of  which  things  you  must  know  can  effect  in 
the  slightest  degree  your  legal  or  your  moral  responsibility. 


20 

"Mr.  Williams"  and  "Dr.  Lord"  were  not  among  your  con 
ditions.     Tliey  are  not  in  your  bond. 

It  is  not  my  office  to  consider  the  legal  quality  and  force 
of  your  act.  This  duty  belongs  to  the  responsible  guard- 
ians of  the  seminary.  You  have  seen  fit,  however,  in  de- 
vising pretexts  for  such  a  crime,  to  arraign  me  before  the 
public  as  if  I  were  the  criminal.  The  plain  tenor  of  your 
letter  is,  that  had  I  but  thought,  felt,  spoken  and  acted  as 
you  supposed  I  would,  or  as  you  willed  I  should,  the  bond 
would  have  been  paid.  And  you  go  into  a  careful  detail  of 
my  ottensos  against  you  as  a  justification  of  your  course.  1 
thus  am  compelled  to  self-vindication.  After  years  of  pa- 
tient and  silent  endurance  of  opposition  and  wrong  fi-om 
you  and  your  sympathisers,  and  though  it  is  painful  to  me 
beyond  expression  to  be  dragged  into  the  public  arena,  I 
am  compelled  to  assert  and  defend  the  truth  and  right. 

The  same  General  Assembly,  sir,  which  accepted  your 
oflered  endowment,  appointed  me  to  one  of  the  four  pro- 
fessorships. This  was  done  without  my  knowledge.  The 
faintest  thought  of  such  a  thing  was  never  in  my  mind,  un- 
til in  a  daily  paper  I  read  the  telegram  announcing  my  elec- 
tion. You  will  perceive,  therefore,  that  the  place  sought 
me,  not  I  the  place.  You  will  perceive,  too,  that  whatever 
may  be  true  as  to  others,  on  my  part,  there  were  no  pledges. 
Neither  the  (Jeneral  Assembly  nor  you  had  a  particle  of 
right  to  assume  that  my  views  and  conduct  would  be  differ- 
ent from  what  they  have  been. 

Urged  by  the  s})ecial  friends  of  the  Seminary,  and  not- 
withstanding it  subjected  me  to  much  pecuniary  sacrifice,  I, 
at  length,  accepted  the  appointment.  My  reception  in 
Chicago  was  kind  and  cordial,  and  fi)r  many  months  my 
presence  and  labors  merited  certainly  no  higher  apprecia- 
tion than  they  had.  From^  the  first,  however,  I  was  con- 
scious, in  my  immediate  surroundings,  of  an  atmosphere 
difterent  from  that  to  which  I  had  been  accustomed.  It 
seemed  to  be,  not  so  much  that  of  Lake  jNIichigan  as  of 
Chesapeake  Bay ;  of  the  prosperous  and  free  North,  as  of 
the  South.  There  were  an  air,  color,  tone  and  general  drift 
of  things  which  made  slowly  but  at  length  quite  definitely 


21 

this  impression,  that  the  professors  were  expected  to  be  the 
exponents  of  Southern  ideas,  and  defenders,  if  necessary,  of 
Southern  institutions,  I  may  note  it  too,  as  a  iiict,  that 
simultaneously  Avith  this,  and  equally  definite,  was  another 
impression,  to  wit,  that  if  the  former  should  prove  really  true,, 
then,  in  the  inevitable  course  of  events,  some  one  must  be 
disappointed.  The  course  of  events  was  inevitable,  and  I 
come  now  to  what  you,  in  your  arraignment  of  me  before 
the  public,  leave  undone  ;  ?.  e.,  to  state  what  were  my  real 
offenses. 

1.  Some  few  months  before  the  war  began,  but  when  the 
danger  of  it  Avas  becoming  imminent,  you  proposed  to  the 
professors  to  issue,  in  connection  with  yourself,  a  sort  of  mani- 
festo or  address  to  the  South.  The  object  was  to  save  the 
Union  and  slavery.  To  give  it  more  weight,  you  wished  it 
to  go  forth  over  our  signatures.  One  of  the  professors  was 
requested  to  prepare  it  and  submit  it  for  our  consideration. 
It  was  an  able  paper,  but  conceived  and  written  from  the 
Southern  stand-point.  In  the  existing  conflict,  it  assumed 
that  slavery  was  all  right,  and  freedom  all  Avrong.  I 
declined  to  sign  it.  Materially  modified  and  toned  down,  it 
was  published  in  the  Expositor,  without  a.  name.  This  wa& 
my  first  conscious  oflTense,  I  did  not  intend  to  offend  you  ; 
but  neither  did  I  intend  to  compromise  my  Christianity  or 
my  manhood. 

2.  The  Chair  of  Theology  in  the  Seminary,  and  the  Pulpit 
of  the  North  Church,  were  about  to  become  vacant.  Dr. 
Rice  had  decided  to  accept  a  call  to  New  York,  You  came 
to  me  and.  said,  that  in  your  view  the  Chair  and  the  Pulpit 
ought  to  be  filled,  as  they  had  been,  by  one  and  the  same 
man,  and  you  proposed  the  Rev.  Dr.  Moore,  of  Richmond, 
Va.  '•  If  the  people  wisli  such  union  of  the  two  offices,"  I 
answered,  "  let  it  be  so.  As  for  Dr.  Moore,  he  is  a  ripe 
scholar  and  an  admirable  ]n-eacher.  So  far  as  these  quali- 
ties are  concerned,  we  could  not,  perhaps,  have  a  better 
man.  But  in  the  present  state  of  things  it  would  be  most 
unwise  to  even  try  to  get  him.  He  has  identified  himself 
with  the  disunionists,  and  uttered  expressions  of  contempt  for 
the  people  of  the  North,  at  which  they  are  indignant.     Dr. 


22 

Gurley  will  meet  our  want  equally  well,  without  subjecting 
us  to  such  peril."  You  replied  slightingly  to  this  sugges- 
tion, and  insisted  on  Dr.  Moore.  With  entire  respect,  but 
with  perfect  frankness,  I  said:  " So  strong  are  my  convic- 
tions that  an  attempt  to  get  Dr.  Moore  would  be  ruinous,  I 
shall  feel  it  my  duty  to  oppose  it  in  every  pro2)er  way." 
This  was  my  second  conscious  oflfense.  I  did  not  intend  to 
offend  you,  but  neither  did  I  intend  such  damage  should 
come,  with  my.  consent,  upon  the  Seminary  and  the  Church. 

3  A  few  weeks  only  rolled  on,  and  the  war  was  indeed 
upon  us.  Fort  Sumter  had  fallen.  The  President  had 
issued  his  first  call  for  seventy-five  thousand  men.  The 
streets  of  Baltimore  were  wet  with  the  blood  of  our  brave 
soldiers.  Every  loyal  heart  in  the  land  was  on  fire.  T  sug- 
gested to  the  temporary  editor  of  your  £Jxj)ositor  the  prej)a- 
ration  of  an  article  proper  to  the  exigency.  lie  desired  me 
to  write  it.  It  was  on  the  duty  of  Christian  citizens  in  such  a 
crisis.  It  simply  said,  in  Christian  words,  that  putting  away 
all  mere  partisan  animosities  and  strifes,  they  should  rally 
as  one  man  around  our  imperiled  government.  The  editor 
cordially  approved  it,  and  it  was  to  appear  in  the  next  issue 
as  an  editorial.  It  got  safely  through  the  types,  it  reached 
the  condition  of  proof-sheet.  At  that  point,  you  saw  it  and 
forbade  its  publication.  This  was  my  third  conscious 
offense.  I  did  not  intend  to  oftond  you.  I  only  intended 
to  plead  for  our  country  in  its  struggle  for  life. 

4.  Another  and  brief  interval  brought  the  climax  of  my 
offenses.  T  w^as  sent  by  my  brethren  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  1861.  The  venerable  Dr.  Spring,  of  Xew  York, 
offered  in  that  body  his  now  historic  resolutions.  They 
were  alike  patriotic  and  Christian.  It  is  marvelous  to  think 
what  excitement  they  produced,  and  how  vehemently  they 
were  opposed  by  great  and  good  men.  I  dared  to  sj)cak 
for  them,  and  vote  for  them.  This  was  my  fourth  conscious 
offense.  From  that  day  to  this  you  have  seemed  to  feel 
that  the  gulf  between  you  and  myself  was  impassable.  I 
did  not  intend  to  offend  you ;  I  only  intended  to  do  my 
duty  as  a  man  and  a  Christian  on  that  great  occasion.  1 
give  thanks  to  God  who  enabled  me  to  do  it. 


23 

These,  then,  are  my  oflenses ;  my  real  offenses,  according 
to  my  best  knowledge  and  belief.  You  will  see,  and  the 
public  will  see,  how  intimate  is  the  connection  between 
them  and  the  spirit  tliat  pei'vades  your  letter.  They  all 
•occurred  before  the  time  at  which  you  begin  your  definite 
accusations.  Let  me  now  examine  these.  They  have  no 
sufficient  ground  in  trutli ;  and  were  they  true  they  would 
;Avail  nothing  to  your  main  purpose. 

1  You  first  affirm  that  in  a  meeting  of  the  IJoard  of 
Directors,  I "  denounced  the  manner  in  which  my  (i.  e.,  your) 
donation  had  been  made  to  the  General  Assembly,  saying, 
that  if  the  Assembly  had  understood  its  terms,  it  would  not 
liave  been  accepted.'"  That  meeting  of  the  Board  was  in 
April,  1862.  I  do  not  wish  to  uncover  all  its  history,  unless 
I  am  compelled.  But  there  began  what  at  the  time  I  felt 
to  be  practical  repudiation.  Dr.  Rice  had  gone  to  Xcm' 
York.  Dr.  Scott  had  gone,  we  trust,  to  heaven.  I  had 
committed  the  above  serious  offenses.  The  General  Assem- 
bly also  had  incurred  your  disi)loasure  by  its  patriotic 
action.  The  purpose  of  making  the  Seminary  an  outpost 
or  bulwark  of  slavery,  if  any  one  entertained  it,  had  plainly 
become  like  a  forlorn  hope.  Your  first  instalment  only 
had  been  paid.  The  second  had  been  due  since  the  14th  of 
the  preceding  September.  The  third  would  mature  in  the 
September  approaching.  By  the  declinature  of  Dr.  Krebs, 
4ind  the  death  of  Dr.  Scott — both  occurring  in  the  interval 
•of  the  Assembly — two  of  the  Chairs  in  the  Seminary  had 
been  nominally  vacant  througlx  the  term.  Really  they  had 
been  filled  by  the  exhaustive  labors  of  Dr.  Halsey  and  my- 
self. Because  of  these  vacancies  then  existing,  you  intima- 
ted that  the  endowment  wjis  forfeited.  This,  however,  was 
more  than  your  most  partial  friends  could  admit.  The  mat- 
ter was  at  length  arranged  by  your  obtaining  a  release 
from  the  i)ayment  of  your  third  and  fourth  instalments, 
both  principal  and  interest,  until  the  vacancies  should  be 
filled.  On  that  occasion  you  assumed  the  right,  virtually, 
to  control  the  endowment,  just  as  you  do  in  your  recent 
letter.  With  reference  especially  to  this  assumption,  I  ex- 
pressed it  as  my  opinion  tliat  had  the  Assembly  so  under- 


24 

stood  your  meaning,  it  would  not  have  accepted  the  endow- 
ment, I  think  so  still.  But  I  denounced  no  one.  I  simply 
and  with  courtesy  gave  an  opinion.  My  then  only  colleague 
assured  me  of  his  concurrence  in  my  view.  But  suppose^ 
sir,  I  had  done  what  you  thus  allege.  What  lias  this  to  do 
with  your  dishonored  bond  ? 

2.  You  charge  me  next  with  a  "gross  attack"  upon  you,, 
withont  cause,  and  in  your  absence  at  a  meeting  of  the 
North  Church.  If  this  were  indeed  so,  I  ought  to  be 
blamed.  But  it  Avas  not  so.  The  meeting  to  which  you 
refer  was  in  September,  18G1.  It  was  held  for  ihe  election 
of  a  pastor.  At  a  previous  meeting,  and  in  accordance  with 
your  wishes,  as  was  generally  understood,  the  Kev.  Dr.  Gur- 
ley  had  been  nominated ;  the  very  man  whom  I  had  sug- 
gested to  you  months  before.  By  some  too  j)artial  friend^ 
my  name  also  had  been  presented.  It  was  without  my 
knowledge,  and  to  my  very  deep  regret.  I  took  occasion 
from  it,  however,  to  be  present  at  the  meeting  you  specify ; 
and  there  not  only  peremptorily  withdrew  my  name,  but 
also,  with  whatever  poAver  I  had,  urged  the  parties  in  the 
church  to  unite  upon  Dr.  Gurley.  I  knew  that  good  man, 
and  firmly  believed  that  his  coming  to  us  Avould  be  a  bless- 
ing. He  was  called,  there  and  then,  by  a  unanimous  vote. 
Intelligent  men  present  at  the  meeting  told  me  this  result 
w^as  owing  to  my  earnest  eftbrts.  And  when  Dr.  Gurley 
was  thus  called,  I  wrote  to  him,  urging  his  acceptance  by 
every  consideration  that  seemed  to  me  proper.  Instead  of 
an  attack  upon  you,  according  to  my  best  recollection  and 
my  firm  belief,  I  neither  uttered  your  name,  nor  even  had 
you  in  my  thoughts,  on  that  occasion.  But  suppose  again, 
I  bad  done  what  you  thus  allege,  what  has  this  to  do  witli 
your  dishonored  bond  ? 

3.  You  allege  further  that  I  was  the  main  cause  of  a  divi- 
sion of  the  church,  which  resulted  in  another  organization. 
This  division  occurred  after  the  interval  of  a  pastorate,  that 
of  the  Kev.  J.  B.  Stewart,  from  the  time  last  noted.  You 
assign  me  a  jtlace  in  connection  with  it,  which  truth  does- 
not  permit  me  to  accept.  All  my  conscious  and  intentional 
influence  was  uniformly  and  strongly  the  other  way.  There 


25 

are  indeed  some  men  who  insist  that  our  great  and  good 
government  Avas  the  cause  of  the  rebellion.  Possibly  this 
is  your  view.  On  such  a  principle  of  reasoning,  no  one  can 
know  for  what  he  may  be  held  responsible.  But  in  no  truer 
sense  can  this  allegation  apply  to  mo.  On  the  contrary,  I 
prayed  and  labored  for  the  luiity  of  the  people.  And  when 
the  signs  of  division  became  imminent,  I  went  to  individu- 
als and  besought  them,  for  the  love  of  Christ,  to  forbear 
crimination  and  recrimination,  and  to  study  those  things 
which  would  make  for  peace.  I  persisted  to  the  last  in  my 
efforts  to  prevent  a  schism  in  the  church  I  loved.  When, 
however,  those  true  Christian  men  and  women  had  made 
their  firm  decision,  despite  my  earnest  counsels  against  it, 
I  could  not  be  blind  to  the  weighty  reasons  which  had 
moved  them ;  nor  could  I  make  their  judgment  the  measure  of 
their  rights.  But  suppose  again,  I  had  done  what  you  thus 
allege,  what  has  this  to  do  with  your  dishonored  bond  ? 

4,  You  venture  another  charge.  "  Dr.  Lord,"  you  affirm, 
"  advocated  before  the  Seminary  Committees  of  the  Assem- 
blies of  1866  and  1867  his  transfer  to  the  Chair  of  Theol- 
ogy." .Vnd  you  press  this  point,  as  showing  my  want  of 
manly  honor. 

You,  sir,  were  present  at  the  Assembly  of  1866.  You, 
therefore,  had  personal  knowledge  that  I  was  not  present. 
At  no  time  during  its  sessions  was  I  nearer  to  it  than  Chi- 
cago is  to  St.  Louis,  nor  do  I  know  who  the  committee  were, 
before  whom  you  represent  me  as  thus  pleading. 

Of  the  Assembly  of  1867  I  was  a  member.  ^\t  the  spe- 
cial request  of  its  committee  on. Seminaries,  I  appeared  be- 
fore it,  in  company  with  many  others,  to  answer  such  ques- 
tions and  make  such  statements  as  the  committee  thought 
necessary,  to  acquaint  them  with  our  affairs  in  the  North- 
west. And  suppose  that  in  their  presence  I  had  made  the 
alleged  plea  ?  Having  for  five  years  and  a  half  ])erforraed 
all  tlie  duties  ])ertainiiig  to  the  (^hair  of  Theology,  besides, 
those  in  connection  with  my  own,  sujipose  I  had  said,  it 
seemed  to  me  just  that  I  should  bear  its  name,  as  well  as  do 
its  work?  What  tlien  ?  It  is  not  commonly  thought 
unmanly  to  reach  right  and  honorable  ends.     Nor  is  such  a 


thing  without  precedent,  in  eitlier  Churcli  or  State.  But  I 
did  not  do  so.  I  made  no  plea  in  advocacy  of  my  transfer. 
The  Committee,  however,  thouglit  it  manly  and  right  to  re- 
commend it.  The  General  Assembly,  by  a  unanimous  de- 
cision, thought  it  manly  and  right  to  make  it.  I  thought  it 
manly  and  right  to  accept  it.  But  again :  Suppose  I  had 
done  what  you  thus  allege?  What  has  this  to  do  with 
your  dishonored  bond  ? 

These,  then,  are  my  offenses,  and  these  your  accusations. 
The  church  and  the  public  will  see  that  I  have  committed 
no  sin  against  peace,  truth,  honor,  I'ight,  or  you,  except  only 
that  which  is  common  to  all  those  who  felt  and  acted  with 
the  church  and  the  nation,  as  against  slavery  and  the  re- 
bellion. My  crimes  are  simply  and  only  those  of  our  Gene- 
ral Assembly  during  the  stupendous  conflict  of  right  Avith 
wrong.  And  if  that  venerable  body  can  think  it  just,  at 
your  will,  and  because  of  my  cordial  agreement  and  co- 
operation with  it,  to  make  me  a  sacrifice,  let  the  sacrifice  be 
made.     My  consistency  and  honor  will  remain  imstained. 

But  there  are  other  matters  in  your  letter  Avhich  merit 
notice.  You  inform  the  public  that  having,  for  the  reasons 
assigned,  resolved  to  violate  your  plighted  faith,  and  not 
feeling  free  to  retain  for  private  use  the  money  thus  sacredly 
devoted,  you  bestowed  it  on  other  institutions  than  that  to 
which  it  legally  and  morally  belonged ;  as  if  the  spoiling  of 
Peter  could  be  sanctified  by  giving  the  gains  of  it  to  oven  the 
other  ai)Ostles.  The  Institutions  you  sek'cted  for  this  l)enefac- 
tion  were  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  and  the  College  in 
Lexington,  both  in  Virginia.  The  Faculty  of  the  former 
were  active  participants  in  the  war  for  slavery,  and  the  Pre- 
sident of  the  latter  was  the  military  Head  of  the  rebellion. 
My  offense  you  judged  to  be  grievous,  and  not  to  be  for- 
given, because  while  faithfully  performing  all  my  sacred 
offices,  I  sympathized  with  our  struggling  country  and  with 
freedom;  but  one  of  the  professors  of  the  above  seminary, 
who  girded  on  his  sword  as  an  officer  in  the  Confederate 
army,  and  the  president  of  the  college,  who  for  yeai's  fiercely 
sought  to  destroy  the  nation,  and  both  of  whom  to  the  ex- 
tent of  their  power,  sent  sorrow  and   death   through  the 


land,  won  your  zealous  admii'ation.  Soon  as  the  throes  of 
the  rebellion  were  sufficiently  quieted  to  permit  it,  you  sent 
your  approval  of  their  course  in  the  form  of  money  to  their 
respective  Institutions ;  money,  too,  as  you  yourself  state, 
which  had  been  solemnly  and  publicly  donated  to  another. 
It  is  a  signal  proof  of  the  inexorable  impartiality  with 
which  you  keep  jjolitics  separate  from  religion. 

There  is  also  an  error  of  principle  and  of  fact  pervading 
your  letter,  which  calls  for  remark.  Your  assumjition  of 
the  right  to  control  our  endowment  is  only  another  form 
of  assuming  that  the  endoAvment  is  still  yours.  Hence  your 
repeated  and  emphatic  imputations  against  my  manliness 
and  honor,  because,  though  put  in  my  office  by  the  church, 
a  part  of  my  insufficient  support  comes  from  the  endow- 
ment, i.  e.  as  you  clioose  to  regard  it,  from  your  money.  I 
repel  the  imputation  and  the  assumption  on  which  you 
make  it.  The  unmanliness  is  elsewhere.  The  assumption 
is  not  true.  My  salary  is  paid  me  by  the  church,  and  from 
means  which  are  its  own.  When  one  man  bestows  a  gift 
upon  another  it  is  not,  at  least  commonly,  supposed  that  he 
still  retains  his  owTiership  in  it.  And,  certainly,  among 
high-minded  and  honorable  men  it  Avould  not  be  tolerated 
that  the  donor  should  be  constantly  reminding  the  donee  of 
the  gift,  and  exacting  his  homage  on  peril  of  its  revocation. 
When  by  your  own  deliberate  act  you  publicly  and  solemnly 
donated  that  one  liundred  thousand  dollars  to  tlie  seminary, 
your  ownership  in  it  ceased.  From  that  time  it  morally 
and  legally  rested  elsewhere.  Your  right  to  it  became  ex- 
tinct, except  in  the  contingency  that  its  conditions  should 
be  violated,  Avhich  contingency  has  never  occurred.  Let  a 
well-known  precedent  instruct  us.  A  citizen  of  Jerusalem 
was  thought  to  have  made  a  certain  donation  to  the  Church. 
The  sequel,  however,  showed  that  he  had  kept  back  a  part. 
An  apostolic  solution  and  decision  of  the  case  established 
these  points  as  permanent  factors  ever  after  in  evangelic 
law  and  morals.  In  the  first  instance,  it  was  wholly  at  tlie 
man's  own  option  to  make,  or  not  to  make  the  gift.  In  the 
second  stage  of  the  matter,  though  specific  and  important 
measures  liad  been  taken  to  consummate  it,  he  was  still  at 


28 

perfect  liberty  to  refrain  or  to  go  forwanl.  But  when  im 
the  third  and  final  step  he  solemnly  laid  his  money  at  the 
apostles'  feet,  the  deed  was  done,  and  it  was,  without  sin^ 
irrevocable.  The  money  was  no  longer  his.  It  belonged 
to  the  Church,  and,  through  tlie  Church,  to  God. 

There  is  another  and  more  practical  view  of  this  particu- 
lar. Many  others  besides  you  have  made  donations  to  the 
seminary,  and  for  the  purpose  set  forth  in  your  bond,  to 
wit :  to  aid  and  carry  forward  an  institution  for  tlie  train- 
ing of  young  men  for  the  Christian  ministry.  Many  piore, 
we  trust,  will  make  donations,  and  in  large  amounts.  "We 
need  them  now,  and  we  shall  need  them  in  the  future.  The 
aggregate  of  those  ah-eady  made  surpasses  the  amount  we 
have  as  yet  received  from  you;  and  indeed  your  whole 
endowment.  Some  have  given  valuable  land.  Some  have 
given  for  the  erection  and  furniture  of  buildings.  Some 
have  given  to  provide  libraries.  Some  have  given  to  endow 
scholarships.  Some  have  given  to  meet  current  expenses  and 
supplement  the  deficient  endowment.  A  moderate  estimate 
of  these  various  gifts  would  reach  at  least  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  thousand  dollars.  An  additional  amount,  cer- 
tainly equal  to  this,  Avill  be  necessary  to  put  the  seminary 
on  an  adequate  financial  basis,  and  provide  for  those  en- 
larged facilities  of  accommodation  and  instruction  which  the 
future  Avill  demand.  Xow,  why  should  one  alone  of  all  these 
donors,  past,  present  and  to  come,  claim  and  be  accorded 
the  right  of  control  ?  If  the  principle  is  valid  and  to  be 
recognized  in  his  case,  why  not  also  in  theirs  ?  Or  if,  while 
conceded  to  him,  it  is  denied  to  them,  would  not  the  inevi- 
table result  be  the  severance  of  the  seminary  from  the  sym- 
pathy and  benefactions  of  the  church  at  large.  On  the  coYi- 
trary,  if  this  right  of  control  be  conceded  to  all  alike,  what 
then  must  follow  ?  Sonie  might  say :  We  are  not  pleased 
with  this ;  give  us  back  our  land.  Others  might  say  :  That 
does  not  meet  our  views ;  give  us  back  our  building.  Other* 
still  might  say:  We  take  exception  to  something  else;., 
give  us  back  our  libraries,  or  our  scholarships,  or  our  notes 
for  the  endowment.     Sir,  a  principle  whose  actual  working. 


29 

-would  realize  a  Babel,  cannot  gain  the  suffrage  of  wise  men, 
-or  belong  to  any  true  system  of  Bible  ethics. 

But,  after  all,  you  intimate  that  your  avowed  purpose  can 
be  changed.  You  are  willing  to  remove  your  displeasure 
from  the  General  Assembly,  to  take  from  off  yourself  the 
spot  of  repudiation,  and  to  show  the  reality  and  strength 
of  your  interest  in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  North- 
west by  giving  an  additional  twenty  thousand  dollars,  on 
two  very  definite  and  very  remarkable  conditions,  viz. : 

First — That  the  General  Assembly  shall  eject  such  of  the 
present  professors  as  you  desire,  and  put  in  their  place 
men  who  will  reflect  your  views;  and. 

Second — That  the  General  Assembly  shall  give  you 
"  proper  assurances  of  non-interference  in  the  future." 

Here  one  cannot  but  pause.  Certainly,  whether  this 
proposition  proceeds  from  humility  or  audacity,  it  is  as- 
tounding. The  Church  of  God  thus  knows  on  Avhat  terms 
it  may  have  your  favor.  You  offer  to  buy  sacred  rites  and 
powers.  For  the  prerogative  of  ijermanent  control  in  the 
appointment  of  theological  professors  to  teach  and  propa- 
gate your  ideas,  you  will  give  money.  Before  the  breath  of 
Mammon  had  tainted  man's  sense  of  honor  and  right,  as  it 
lias  in  later  times,  such  things  were  called  Simony.  It  is 
incredible  that  you  intended  all  that  your  words  contain. 

Before  closing  this  letter  allow  me  to  inform  you,  and 
through  you  the  public,  that  in  many  ways  God  has  blessed 
and  is  blessing  our  young  seminary.  In  respect  to  its  inter- 
ternal  aftairs  and  its  facilities  for  effecting  the  sacred  ends 
for  which  it  was  founded,  it  is  perhaps  in  a  better  condition 
now  than  ever  before.  We  have  a  building  not  surpassed 
by  any  otlier  in  the  church  in  its  arrangements  for  the  con- 
A'enience  and  comfort  of  students.  ^Ve  have  a  library  which, 
though  not  large,  is  yet,  as  to  quality,  exceeding  choice, 
and  for  adaptation  to  the  ordinary  wants  of  a  Theological 
Seminary  is  without  a  superior.  We  have  a  Financial 
Agent  of  eminent  fitness  and  excellence,  and  whom  the 
churches  receive  with  great  cordiality.  We  have  a  full 
Faculty,  working  together  in  entire  harmony,  and,  I  trust, 
twith  real  efiiciency.     We  have  a  company  of  noble  young 


30 

men  diligently  pursuing  the  prescribetl  studies,  and  many 
of  them  give  high  promise  of  success  as  pastors  and  preach- 
ers in  the  Church  of  God.  We  have  the  confidence,  sym- 
pathy, prayers  and  co-operation  of  the  great  mass  of 
Christian  ministers  and  people  in  our  connection  through 
the  Northwestern  States.  And  as  our  special  sphere  Ave 
have  a  field  for  action  and  influence  literally  immense.  If 
only  a  few  brethren  here  and  there  wmild  rise  up  to  the 
imitation  of  an  apostolic  example  and  forget  those  things 
which  are  behind ;  and  if  we  all  together  would  Christianly 
and  resolutely  reach  forth  imto  those  things  which  are 
before,  our  seminary  would  have  not  only  peace,  but  a  great 
and  glorious  future. 

In  all  that  is  true  and  right,  I  am  yours, 

WILLIS  LOUD. 


From  the  North- Western  Preshi/terlat),  Jan.  9th,  18U9. 

REPLY  TO  MR.  JESSE  L.  AVILLIA3IS. 

Xeav  York,  Dec.  28,  1868. 

Messus.  Editoks: — I  find  in  your  issue  of  the  19th  inst.,. 
a  letter  from  Jesse  L.  Williams,  Esq.,  published  as  a  "  cor- 
rection" of  my  letter  of  the  I'Jth  of  Nov.,  "in  some  parti- 
culars." As  nothing  further  has  appeared  in  your  columns 
in  answer  to  my  letter,  I  might  hardly  have  felt  it  necessary 
to  occupy  more  S2)ace  in  your  journal,  had  not  my  letter 
elicited  so  much  comment  in  other  papers,  religious  and  po- 
litical, as  to  make  it  proper,  with  your  leave,  to  take  some 
notice  of  them  in  the  XoRxn- Western',  as  the  medium  of 
my  communications  upon  this  subject. 

With  due  deference  to  Mr.  Williams,  however,  he  is  at 
present  over-modest  of  his  influence  with  his  Seminary 
friends,  and  underrates,  let  me  say,  the  importance  of  "our 
brief  interview  durinc:  the  session  of  the  (ieneral  Assoniblv 


:31 

of  1866."  We  liad  certainly  two  interviews,  and  my  im- 
pression is  that  we  had  three ;  and  while  conceding  the  dif- 
ference of  recollection  between  Mr.  Williams  and  myself  in 
the  particulars  mentioned — every  essential  point  between 
ns,  however,  being  quite  clear — I  must  claim  some  advan- 
tage over  him  on  the  score  of  recollection,  having  "  written 
down"  for  publication  at  the  time  a  statement  of  the  case, 
not  so  much  to  preserve  "  any  remarks  made  by  either  of 
ns  at  that  interview^"  as  then  to  lay  the  whole  matter  be- 
fore the  public,  as  is  now  done. 

Xow  I  have  not  stated  that  Mr.  Williams  "  was  clothed 
with  authority  to  speak  for  the  Assembly,  the  Directors,  or 
Trustees ;"  or  that  he  "  assumed"  any.  Nor  have  I  meant 
to  be  understood  as  giving  his  precise  words  when  not  so 
quoted;  but  when  he  says  he  made  "  no  response"  to  my 
remark — as  he  has  it — that  "  they  would  not,  of  course, 
expect  me  to  pay  any  more ;"  and  that  there  was  "  a)i  imme- 
diate effort  in  vieio''^  to  eyidoio  his  (MacMaster's)  chair,  by 
''^  his  friends,^''  icho  '■'' supposed  he  wovXd  not  accept  icithout 
bringing  with  him,  as  their  contribution,  the  basis  of  his 
oicn  support^"*  while  Dr.  MacMaster  himself  says,  in  his  let- 
ter of  acceptance,  published  in  the  notice  of  this  correspon- 
dence by  the  Presbyter,  that  "  this  difficulty  is  obviated  by 
the  spontaneous  action  of  the  brethren  who  have  the  matter 
in  charge,  and  by  whom  I  am  assured  that  the  endowment  of 
the  chair  to  which  I  have  been  appointed,  is  to  be  provided  for 
by  an  additional  fund,  so  as  to  preclude  the  necessity  of  draw- 
ing for  its  support  on  the  present  endowment  ;•"  and,  fur- 
ther, as  shown  in  my  previous  letter  by  the  statement  of  the 
collecting  agent,  in  connection  with  the  present  embarrass- 
ment of  the  Seminary,  that  "  some  of  the  few  subscribers 
to  the  ]Mac]Master  endowment  refused  to  pay  because  of  the 
failure  to  raise  the  ^50,000" — I  now  submit,  whether  the  cor- 
rectness of  my  position  is  not  made  out,  without  reference 
to  the  particular  words,  "response"  or  not,  of  ^Nfr.  Wil- 
liams, and  irrespective  of  what  he  said  of  the  matter  after- 
wards in  the  Board  of  Directors.  The  question  of  differ- 
ence is  no  longer  restricted  to  the  conversations  between 
Mr.  Williams  and  myself.    It  now  appears  that  my  position, 


.32 

views  and  wishes  in  the  matter,  were  promptly  and  fully 
made  known  to  the  Seminary  Committee  of  the  Assembly, 
and  that  the  action  of  tlie  Assembly,  in  the  election  of  Dr. 
MacMaster,  was  taken  accordingly,  and  with  the  further 
knowledge  that  the  endowment  by  his  friends  was  neces- 
sar)'^  to  his  acceptance — that  he  depended  upon  such  endow- 
ment. And  if  endowed  by  the  friends  of  Dr.  Mac^Master, 
how  could  the  chair  be  also  endowed  by  me  !  And  if,  again, 
as  now  recollected  by  Mr.  Williams,  $20,000  of  the  ^50,000 
to  be  provided  by  tlie  friends  was  to  be  applied  to  the  in- 
crease of  tlie  funds  for  the  otJier  chairs,  no  further  funds  for 
the  endowment  could  possibly  have  been  expected  of  me. 

Add  to  the  endowment  of  Dr.  McMaster's  chair  the  addi- 
tional funds  necessary  to  tlie  completion  of  this  enterprise 
by  the  "  new  friends  " — as  referred  to  in  my  previous  letter, 
and  since  admitted  by  Mr.  "Williams — and  the  supposed 
aggregate  amount  of  about  $150,000  appears,  for  which 
"the  Chair  of  Theology  and  the  good  working  majority 
in  the  Board  of  Directors"  were  required  in  1866. 

Since  writing  the  foregoing,  I  have  seen  the  comments  of 
the  Presbyter  on  Mr.  Williams's  letter,  which  are  confined 
to  his  (Mr.  Williams's)  statement  of  my  remark  to  him,  that 
"  they  will  not  expect  me  to  ^>ay  any  more.''''  The  Pres- 
byter treats  this  as  a  quotation  by  Mr.  Williams  from  my 
representation  of  what  I  had  said,  without  taking  any  ex- 
ception to  it.  This  is  a  mistake.  3fy  pul^lished  statement 
of  my  remark  to  Mi*.  Williams  was,  that  "  they  would  of 
course  not  expect  me  to  pay  over  the  remainiiig  fourth  in- 
stalment," then  unpaid.  The  words  used  by  Mr.  Williams 
agree  with  mine  in  substance.  If  by  the  slight  change  in 
the  words  used  by  I\[r.  Williams,  suggested  by  the  Pres- 
byter, my  meaning  might  have  been  considered  uncertain — 
"  on  two  occasions,  in  meetings  of  the  Directors  " — it  is  not 
jyossible  that  I  could  have  meant  less  than  is  indicated  by 
the  words  of  Mr.  Williams.  When  involuntarily,  and 
against  my  protest,  superseded  by  the  action  of  the  Assem- 
bly, with  the  proposition  that  not  only  the  means  for  the 
endowment  of  Dr.  McMaster's  chair,  but  also  what  would 
become  necessary  ^r  completing  the  Seminary  endowment, 


33 

would  be  provided,  it  must  have  been  superfluous  in  rae  to 
say,  as  rendered  by  the  Presbyter^  "  Expect  no  more  of  me 
than  my  bond !"  The  clause  in  the  "  report  of  the  Trustees 
to  the  Directors  in  1867,"  (given  in  the  Presbyter,)  showing 
my  unwilliyigness  to  "pay  any  more,"  is  therefore  quite 
consistent  with  what  every  friend  at  St.  Louis  to  whom  I 
•spoke  of  the  matter  understood ;  and,  how  Mr.  Williams 
could  have  any  donbt  on  that  point,  I  of  course  do  not 
understand. 

Respectfully,  &c., 

C.  H.  McCORMICK. 


From  the  JVort/i-  Western  Presbyterian,  February  6,  1869. 

REPLY  OF  MR.    CYRUS   H.    McCORMICK 
TO   DR.  LORD, 

New  York  Jan.  16th,  1869. 
Rev.  Willis  Lord,  D.  D. 

Sir  :  In  answer  to  your  letter  to  me,  dated  19th  ult,  post- 
marked the  28th,  in  reply  to  my  published  letter  of  Nov. 
17th,  on  Seminary  matters,  it  is  of  some  consequence  first  to 
ascertain  the  state  of  the  case,  and  relations  of  the  parties 
to  it. 

In  my  letter,  I  only  referred  to  such  differences  between 
you  and  myself  o.^  were  necessary  to  show  the  inconsistency 
and  impropriety  of  your  occupancy  of  the  "  Cyrus  H.  Mc 
Cormick  Professorship  of  Theology,"  and  gave  some  reasons 
to  substantiate  my  position.  I  said  :  "  I  am  induced  to  state 
these  matters  in  order  that  the  existing  relations  between 
Dr.  Lord  and  myself  may  be  the  better  understood,  sup- 
posing as  I  have,  that  there  are  few  men  who  would  be  wil- 
ling to  occupy  the  chair  in  qicestion  as  he  has  done,  under 
such  circumstances." 

You  have  replied  in  a  letter  characterized  by  a  Presby- 
terian paper  as  one  of  "  great  length  and  severity.'^     You 


34 

have  not  thought  proper  to  stop  with  a  defense  of  yourself, 
but  have  labored  far  more  to  arraign  me  on  the  question  of 
my  "  dishonored  bond,"  as  you  are  pleased  to  term  it,  and 
the  differences  between  the  General  Assembly  and  myself 
in  relation  thereto — not  satisfied  with  the  discussion  of  that 
question  between  "  the  Hon.  Jesse  L.  Williams  "  and  my- 
self, betAveen  whom  the  only  differences  had  appeared  as  to 
the  action  of  the  Assembly  of  1866,  on  that  question.  If  the 
sequel  does  not  show  that  your  "  great  severity  "  is  more 
against  yourself  than  me,  "  some  one  (as  you  say)  must  be 
disappointed  "  again  !  I  shall  use  no  more  "  severity  "  tow- 
ards you,  however,  than  necessary  to  do  justice  to  others. 

A  coiionitee  of  tlte  Directors  of  the  North  Western  Theo- 
logical Seminary  addressed  a  letter  to  me  dated  Oct.  16, 1868, 
informing  me  of  the  election  of  Rev.  Mr.  Blackburn,  by  the 
General  Assembly,  to  the  Chair  of  History,  and  signifying  a 
wish  that  I  should  pay  over  the  (unpaid)  fourth  instalment 
of  my  original  endowment  fund — and  as  yon  would  have 
it,  redeem  my  "  plighted  faith  ;  "  honor  my  "  dishonored 
bond  "  ;  restore  "  the  money  thus  sacredly  devoted  "  to  the 
"Institution  to  which  it  legally  and  morally  belongs,"  wliich, 
as  you  say,  had  been  diverted  and  "  bestowed  on  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  and  the  College  in  Lexington,  both 
in  Virginia  "  ! 

In  assigning  in  my  letter  some  reasons  why  I  felt  called 
on  to  notice  in  a  public  manner  the  demand  made  upon  me 
by  the  committee  for  this  2yay'>''ient,  I  said  that,  "  having- 
reached  the  point  Avhere,  in  my  judgment,  further  silence 
would  be  improper,  and  a  vindication  of  myself  becomes  a 
duty,  I  offer  this  correspondence  to  the  public,  that  the  facta 
in  the  case  may  be  understood."  I  am  gratified  that  Avhile 
some  of  the  political  papers  at  Chicago  have  caught  your 
spirit,  the  religious  press,  in  their  treatment  of  the  subject, 
have  shown  a  different  spirit. 

In  refusing  to  pay  to  the  Board  of  Directors  the  fourth 
instalment  of  the  endowment,  which  they  had  in  1867  been 
informed  by  the  "  Report  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  "  would 
not  be  paid,  I  did  so — not  on  the  ground  of  your  course  and 
conduct,  as  stated,  for  at  that  time  you  had  not  succeeded 


35 

in  getting  yourself  transferred  to  the  chair  of  Theology,  but 
— on  the  ground  made  known  to  the  General  Assembly  at 
St.  Louis,  in  18t>6,  through  Mr.  Jesse  L.  Williams,  viz  :  the 
taking  from  the  original  friends  of  the  Seminary,  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  the  chair  of  Theology,  in  the  election  of  Dr. 
MacMaster ;  and  giving  "  a  working  majority  in  the  Board 
of  Directors  "  to  the  "  new  friends,"  by  the  dis2:)lacement 
of  the  Directors  who  had  co-operated  with  us  in  the  work 
of  the  Seminary.  And  yet,  you  say  my  "only  avowed  rea- 
sons for  dishonoring  "  my  bond  are  my  '•'•  personal  feelings 
towards  yourself  and  an  alleged  conversation  with  the  Hon. 
J.  L.  Williams"  !  This  is  not  true.  As  I  have  already 
shown,  I  "  avowed"  nothing  of  '■'■  pergonal  feelings  towards 
you  "  in  connection  with  my  "  dishonored  hond  "  ! 

In  further  noticing  your  communication,  I  will  first  con- 
sider the  only  "  offenses  "  with  which,  in  my  letter,  I  charged 
you,  and  the  manner  in  which  these  have  been  met. 

1.  I  said,  "  Dr.  Lord  denounced  the  manner  in  which  my 
donation  had  been  made  to  the  General  Assembly."  This, 
you  say,  occurred  at  the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors 
in  April,  1862  ;  and  add  that  "  then  began  what  at  that  time 
you  felt  to  be  practical  repudiation  /  "  and  you  account  for 
my  disposition  to  repudiate  by  what  you  term  your  sun- 
dry "  real  causes  "  of  offense  to  me — which  will  be  noticed 
in  their  proj^er  order. 

Without  recollecting  all  the  particulars  that  occijrred  at 
this  meeting,  it  is  sufficient  that  your  object  was  to  have  the 
several  instalments  of  the  endowment  fund  paid  by  me, 
that  you  might  share  the  benefit  of  those  applying  to  the 
vacant  chairs,  or,  as  if  so  provided  in  the  terms  of  my  endow- 
ment ;  while  it  was  shown  by  Judge  Scates,  on  reading  the 
bond  to  the  meeting,  only  to  be  payable,  825,000  to  each 
Professor  ;  and  whereupon,  as  you  say,  the  matter  was 
"  at  length  arranged''"'  by  postponing  payment  of  the  "  thircl 
and  fourth  instalments,  both  principal  and  interest,  until 
the  vacancies  should  be  filled,"  After  the  reading  of  the 
bond  by  Judge  Scates,  came  your  denunciation — not,  as 
you  say,  on  the  ground  of  my  "  assumed  right,  virtually, 
to  control  the  endowment,  for  the  arrangement  was  made 


36 

simply  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  bond  ;  and  the 
fact  that  the  second  and  third  instalments  were  afterwards 
paid  accordingly,  and  subsequent  to  the  occurrence  of  your 
list  of  "  real  offenses  "  towards  me,  as  you  state  them,  does 
not  seem  much  like  '■'^  practical  repudiation  ! ''"'  Your  "then 
only  colleague  "  has  since  stated  that,  on  hearing  the  bond 
read  at  that  meeting  of  the  Board,  which  was  the  first  time 
he  had  heard  it,  he  became  satisfied  that  I  was  right  in  my 
construction  of  it,  and  that  I  intended  "  that  the  income  of 
the  $100,000  should  be  applied  to  the  four  Professors,  and 
not  to  a  less  number."  "  But,"  as  you  say,  "  what  has  this 
to  do  with  your  dishonored  bond  ?"  Nothing :  but  it  is  one 
reason  why  you  should  not  have  sought  your  transfer  to  the 
*'  Cyrus  H,  McCormick  Professorship  of  Theology." 

2.  I  alluded  to  your  "  gross  attack  upon  me,  Avithout 
cau^e,  and  in  my  absence,  at  a  meeting  of  the  North  Church." 
"  If  this  were  indeed  so,"  you  say,  "  I  ought  to  be  blamed. 
But  it  was  not  so.  I  neither  uttered  your  name,  nor  had 
you  in  my  thoughts  on  that  occasion."  You  admit  this  to 
be  a  cause  of  offense  to  me  if  so,  but  deny  the  fact.  I  shall 
make  it  clear  that  it  wa^  so. 

You  have  not  denied  that  you  used  tha  language  alleged, 
nor  have  you  stated  to  Avhom  or  what  you  did  refer.  I  can 
not  specify  at  what  particular  meeting  your  lengthy  speech 
containing  this  threat  was  made,  but  that  you  did  make  it, 
and  did  refer  to  me,  and  could  not  well  have  referred  to 
any  one  else,  I  am  assured,  was  the  distinct  understanding 
of  several  of  the  most  intelligent  gentlemen  then  present, 
by  whom,  as  I  said,  "  it  was  heard  with  astonishment  and 
disapprobation, "  and  who  have  been  equally  astonished  at 
your  denial.  That  their  understanding  of  the  reference  was 
correct,  is  further  confirmed  by  tlie  statement  of  a  minister, 
whom  you  met  upon  the  street  in  Chicago  soon  afterwards, 
and  to  whom,  in  a  most  excited  manner,  for  you,  you  re- 
peated the  declaration,  making  it  still  stronger,  saying,  "  if 
I  were  to  make  public  what  I  knew  of  a  certain  party 
in  that  church,  in  three  hours  time  it  would  raise  a  mob 
that  would  tear  it  to  the  ground."  This  statement  led  to  a 
pi'otracted  conversation  in  which  my  name  was  repeatedly 


37 

mentioned,  as  the  person  to  whom  reference  was  had  in  the 
threat  made. 

In  the  same  speech  and  in  the  same  connection,  yom  alsa 
said,  you  were  "  a  proscribed  man."  And  when  asked  the 
next  day,  "  By  whom  ? "  your  answer  was,  "  By  Mr.  Mc- 
Cormick,"  though  as  you  were  then  assured  I  had  in  no 
way  interfered.  Your  fancied  proscription,  so  far  as  is 
known,  was  the  great  matter,  Avhich  if  disclosed,  to  the 
public,  was  to  work  such  damage  to  that  important  church. 
From  these  disclosures  it  is  evident  that  your  threat  was 
levelled  against  me,  notwithstanding  your  denial.  It  is  also 
evident  that  the  only  ground  for  such  a  threat  was  that  yoii 
imagined  yourself  to  have  been  proscribed.  The  names  of 
the  pei'sons  here  referred  to  as  witnesses  will  be  given  iu. 
full  if  required. 

In  this  connection  you  deny  having  been  a  candidate  for 
the  pastorate  of  the  North  church,  saying,  "  By  some  too 
partial  friend  my  name  also  had  been  presented.  It  was 
Avithout  my  knowledge  and  to  my  very  deep  regret."  This- 
is  a  most  surj^rising  statement.  In  view  of  the  facts.  You 
seem  to  have  forgotten  that,  in  the  speech  in  which  occur- 
red your  threat  against  me,  and  Avhich  was  delivered  imme- 
diately after  your  nomination,  you  did  not  once  with  draw 
your  name.  You  seem  to  have  forgotten  also  your  subse- 
quent remark  to  one  of  the  elders  of  that  church  that  if  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Stewart  should  leave  you  would  like  to  take 
charge  of  the  church,  and  also  your  statement  to  another 

elder  afterward,  that,  if  he  and  Mr.  M and  Mr.  R 

would  support  you,  you  would  accept  the  call, — which  call 
had  been  voted  by  your  friends  at  a  meeting  when  but  a 
part  of  the  congregation  were  present.  You  seem  to  have 
forgotten  also  that  when  this  call,  thus  voted,  was  placed 
In  your  hands  by  the  Presbytery,  in  the  face  of  a  protest 
numerously  signed,  you  kept  it  in  your  possession  until  con- 
vinced that  you  could  not  be  supported  as  pastor  of  the 
church.  "  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  your  dishonored 
bond?"  Nothing  ;  but  in  the  opinion  of  many  who  were 
acquainted  with  these  facts  it  is  a  good  reason  why  you 


38 

should  not  occupy  the  "  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  Professorship 
of  Theology." 

3.  In  connection  with  the  "  astonishment  and  disappro- 
bation "  felt  at  your  threat  above  mentioned,  I  said  that 
your  course  led  ultimately  to  the  division  of  the  North 
Church,  and  to  a  number  of  your  friends  going  off  and  or- 
ganizing themselves  into  a  rival  congregation — on  which 
you  comment  under  this  head,  saying,  "  All  my  conscioiut 
and  intentional  influence  was  uniformly  and  strongly  tlie 
other  way."  You  were  then,  perhaps,  as  in  other  cases, 
wholly  unconscious  of  your  "  real  "  influence.  From  your 
remark  in  this  connection — but  with  no  legitimate  connec- 
tion— that  "there  are  indeed  some  men  who  insist  tliat 
our  great  and  good  government  was  the  cause  of  the  rebel- 
lion, possibly  this  is  your  view,  as  well  as  from  your  failure 
to  recollect  so  thrilling  a  scene  in  your  imagination  as  the 
one  so  pathetically  portrayed  by  you  in  the  tearing  down 
of  the  North  Church  in  three  hours'  time  by  a  mob,  one  is 
inclined  to  think  your  memory  not  quite  reliable  as  to  plain 
matters  of  fact,  when  under  the  "influence"  of  highly  pitclied 
patriotic  emotion.  You  certainly  had  your  share  at  least 
of  the  credit  due  "  those  true  Christian  men  and  women " 
who,  moved  by  such  "  weighty  reasons,"  did  organize  said 
"  rival  church  "  under  your  open  advocacy  in  Presbytery. 
"  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  your  dishonored  bond  ? " 
Nothing  :  but  it  is  a  reason  why  you  should  not  insist  on 
payment  of  that  bond  for  your  support  in  the  "  Cyrus  II. 
McCormick  Professoi*ship  of  Theology." 

4.  As  to  your  advocacy  of  your  transfer  to  the  Chair  of 
Theology,  in  1866  and  1867  :  you  virtually  admit  the  fact 
as  to  the  Assembly  of  ISO  7,  and  defend  your  right  to  do  so. 
This  you  could  not  well  deny,  in  view  of  the  Avell  known 
fact  that  you  appeared  in  person  before  the  Assembly's 
Committee  on  Seminaries,  (which  committee  "  had  been 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Moderator,")  and  together 
with  others  replied  to  speeches  made  before  the  same  com- 
mittee in  opposition  to  your  proposed  transfer.  You  say 
you  were  not  at  the  Assembly  of  1866.  This  is  true  ;  but 
the  mail  and  telegraph  supply  the  means  of  accomplishuig 


39 

what  would  otherwise  be  lost  for  want  of  personal  pre- 
sence, and  it  was  understood  at  St.  Louis  that  you  had  re- 
course to  one  or  both  of  these  means,  to  effect  your  trans- 
fer to  the  Chair  of  Theology  by  that  Assembly — having 
threatened  to  resign  if  not  transferred,  whereupon  you  were 
at  once  dropped !  And  it  is  said,  and  of  course  knotcn^  if 
80,  that  you  exerted  yourself  to  the  utmost  to  secure  Com- 
missioners from  Presbytery  (of  Chicago)  in  favor  of  your 
transfer,  going  into  a  caucus  for  that  purpose,  and  refusing 
to  vote  for  any  one  (as  Commissioner)  who  would  not  vote 
for  the  transfer. 

"  But  what  had  this  to  do  with  your  dishonored  bond  ?" 
N'othing :  But  the  Assembly  at  St.  Louis  regarded  it  as 
the  best  reason  why  you  should  not  then  occupy  the  "  Cyrus 
H.  McCormick  Professorship  of  Theology." 

I  must  now  notice  your  own  pretended  "  real  offenses," 
and  add  something  to  the  list  of  your  actual  offenses.  The 
letter  of  Dr.  Rice,  hereto  subjoined,  will  assist  in  showing 
how  "  real "  your  "  offenses  "  are. 

1 .  You  say,  "  Some  months  before  the  war  began,  but 
when  the  danger  of  it  was  becoming  imminent,  you  pro- 
posed to  the  professors  to  issue,  in  connection  with  yourself, 
a  sort  of  manifesto  or  address  to  the  South.  The  object 
was  to  save  the  Union  and  Slavery.  To  give  it  more 
weight,  you  wished  it  to  go  forth  over  our  signatures.  One 
■of  the  professors  was  requested  to  prepare  it  and  submit  it 
for  our  consideration.  It  was  an  able  paper,  but  conceived 
and  written  from  a  Southern  standpoint.  In  the  existing 
conflict,  it  assumed  that  slavery  was  all  right,  and  freedom 
all  wrong.  I  declined  to  sign  it.  Materially  modified  and 
toned  down,  it  was  published  in  the  Expositor^  without  a 
name.     This  was  my  first  conscious  offense." 

Immediately  preceding  this  you  had  said :  "  From  the 
-first,  however,  I  was  conscious,  in  my  immediate  surround- 
ings, of  an  atmosphere  different  from  that  to  which  I  had 
been  accustomed.  It  seemed  to  be  not  so  much  that  of 
Lake  Michigan  as  of  Chesapeake  Bay ;  of  the  prosperous 
and  free  North,  as  of  the  South.  There  were  an  air,  color, 
tone  and  general  drift  of  things  which  made  slowly  but  at 


40 

length  quite  definitely  this  impression,  that  the  professom 
Avere  expected  to  be  the  exponents  of  Southern  ideas,  and 
defenders,  if  necessary  of  Southern  institutions." 

ElscAvhere  in  your  Christian  and  conciliatory  letter  you 
said:  "The  purpose  of  making  the  seminary  an  outpost  or 
bulwark  of  slavery,  if  any  one  entertained  it,  had  ])lainly 
become  like  a  forlorn  hope." 

Should  these  statements,  equally  unfriendly  to  your  col- 
leagues, to  the  original  Directors  and  students  of  the  serai- 
nary,  and  damaging  to  the  church  at  large,  be  found  to  be 
wholly  untrue,  what  then  ?  "What  would  your  position  then 
be  before  the  church  and  all  candid  and  impartial  men  ? 
Coidd  any  man,  who  truly  loved  the  Old  School  Presbyte- 
rian Church  and  her  institutions,  and  who  was  truly  loyal 
to  all  her  interests,  permit  himself  to  make  such  charges 
against  an  important  Seminary,  its  professors  and  founders  ? 
That  they  are  not  only  unsustained,  as  they  are  in  your  let- 
ter, but  unfounded  assertions,  the  letter  of  Dr.  Kice,  your 
senior  professor  for  two  years,  herewith  submitted  to  the 
public,  abundantly  shows.  It  disposes  completely  of  your 
"  first  conscious  offense."  His  testimony  can  be  confirmed 
by  that  of  the  only  other  surviving  Professor,  and  by  most 
of  the  Directors  then  in  oflice.  "  But  what  has  this  to  do 
with  your  dishonored  bond  ?"  Nothing ;  but  it  goes  to- 
show  your  unfitness  for  the  position  you  have  used  every 
means  to  secure,  and  the  impropriety  of  your  asking  me  to- 
pay  $25,000  for  your  siqjport  in  that  Chair. 

2.  Your  second  conscious  offense  is  equally  groundless- 
with  the  first.  If  you  used  the  "strong"  expressions  you  now 
state  against  the  nomination  of  "  the  llev.  Dr.  Moore  "  for 
"  the  Chair  of  Theology,  in  the  Seminary,  and  tlie  })ulpit  of 
the  North  church,"  I  have  no  recollection  of  it.  I  do  well 
recollect,  however,  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Direc- 
tors, Dr.  Boardman,  Dr.  Moore  and  Dr.  Gurley,  were  named 
for  the  chair.  As  I  recollect,  neither  of  the  three  gentle- 
men would  accept.  Dr.  Ilalsey  s})oke  in  the  highest  terms 
of  Dr.  Moore,  and  I  was  asked  to  write  to  him,  which  I  did. 
Some  doubts  were  exjiressed  in  the  meeting  as  to  his  loy- 
alty, and  whether  he  had  written  certain  things  against  the- 


41 

North,  as  had  been  represented,  but  was  not  known.  Satis- 
factory information  was  to  be  sought  on  that  question,  but 
his  declinature  superseded  further  investigation.  There 
was  no  such  issue  made  about  him,  however,  as  you  repre- 
sent. Dr.  Gurley  was  my  friend,  personally,  and  his  call 
afterwards  to  the  pastorate  of  the  Noith  church,  and  visit 
to  Chicago,  were  brought  about  by  my  instrumentality.  He 
was  unwilling  to  undertake  both  j^reaching  and  teaching. 
.  3.  Your  "  third  conscious  offense,"  the  character  of  the 
article  written  by  you  as  an  editorial  for  the  Expositor,  I 
do  not  recollect.  I  have  some  recollection  of  the  circum- 
stance, since  your  reference  to  it,  but  only  as  disagreeing 
with  you  as  to  the  expediency  of  publishing  the  article  as 
an  editorial.  After  Dr.  Rice  left  Chicago,  I  was  not  only 
the  proprietor  but  the  responsible  manager  (or  editor)  of 
the  paper;  and  as  you  have  made  good  your  claim  to  hav- 
ing been  a  Radical  of  the  first  water — often  the  case  with 
converts  from  one  doctrine  to  another — it  cannot  be  con- 
sidered very  strange  that  an  editorial  written  by  you  with- 
out any  conference  whatever  with  me,  under  all  the  excite- 
ment to  which  you  refer,  should  not  have  been  precisely 
what  I  chose  to  be  responsible  for — apart  from  the  fact, 
well  understood,  that  conservative  Presbyterians  generally 
are  opposed  to  agitating  the  church  with  political  questions. 
I  understand,  moreover,  that  JDr.  Ilalsey  has  a  distinct 
recollection  that  I  only  objected  to  the  article  as  an  edi- 
torial, in  my  name,  saying  explicitly  that  if  you  wished  to 
publish  such  an  article,  you  could  do  so  over  your  own 
name.     This  you  did  not  choose  to  do. 

4.  YoMY  fourth,  and  "  climax  of  offenses,"  as  you  represent 
it,  consisted  in  advocating  and  voting  for  the  "  Spring  Reso- 
lutions" in  the  General  Assembly  of  1861.  Those  Resolu- 
tions, you  say,  were  "  alike  Patriotic  and  Christian  ;"  but 
you  also*  say:  "It  is  marvelous  to  think  Avhnt  excitement 
tlu'v  pro  luc'd,  and  how  vehemently  tliey  were  opposed  by 
grt'at  an  1  uoo  I  men."  Well,  if  lliey  were  nut  only  opjtosed 
•  "  by  grt-at  aiid  goo.l  nit-n."  liut  <)i)|)()se(l  '"  rt//t'.//('//^/v,"  it  is 
not  surprising  that  I  ditl  not  approve  tliem.  "  (ircat  and 
good  men  "  ari'  generally  '»otli  jKitrio's  an<l  Christians,  and 


42 

were  not  very  likely  to  oppose  a  popular  paper  that  was 
"  alike  Patriotic  and  Christian."  Tliose  "  great  and  good 
men,"  among  whom  stood  prominently  the  venerable  Dr. 
Hodge,  of  Princeton,  believed  then,  and  believe  stilly  that  in 
adopting  the  "  Spring  Resolutions,"  the  Assembly  traveled 
entirely  beyond  its  Constitutional  and  Scriptural  limits,  and 
decided  a  great  civil  question  ;  and  that,  by  so  doing,  that 
body  virtually  cut  off  nearly  one-half  of  the  church!  And 
as  I  gave  the  endowment  to  the  whole  churchy  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  as  I  agree  with  those  "  great  and 
good  men  "  in  regard  to  the  course  of  the  Assembly ;  is  it 
surprising  that,  in  connection  with  the  couree  since  pursued 
towards  myself  and  friends,  I  am  not  only  unwilling  to  pay 
more  money  in  tlie  same  direction,  as  matters  stand,  but 
believe  that  what  I  have  paid  has  been  forfeited  ? 

You  knew,  and  the  entire  church  knew,  a's  Dr.  Rice  has 
shown,  that  two  different  doctrines  were  agitating  the 
church  and  country  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  slavery,  to 
which  you  refer,  when  this  Seminary  was  founded :  that  one 
doctrine — the  chui'ch  docti'ine — was  represented  by  Dr. 
Rice,  and  the  other  by  Dr.  MacMaster.  You  knew  that  the 
position  on  this  subject  represented  by  Dr.  Rice,  which  was 
the  church  position,  and  the  position  of  all  the  Seminaries 
of  the  church,  Princeton,  Allegl)any  and  Danville,  was  the 
one  that  prevailed  at  Indianapolis,  after  having  been  advo- 
cated at  length  by  Dr.  Rice,  as  against  Dr.  MacMaster. 
You  knew  that  the  endowment  was  proffered  and  accepted 
by  the  General  Assembly  on  that  basis.  The  Professors 
were  elected  on  that  basis,  and  on  that  basis  they  accepted. 
I  further  submit,  therefore,  that  the  Church  and  the  Pro- 
fessors, so  long  as  they  retain  their  positions  and  draw  from 
that  endowment  fund,  are  in  all  moral  honesty  bound  to 
abide  by  that  position— the  former  keeping  the  Professor- 
ships filled  by  men  in  harmony  with  the  Seminary  as  origi- 
nally founded.  I  have  always  believed  that  the  Old  School 
Church,  as  represented  by  the  deliverances  of  the  Assembly, 
and  the  other  Seminai'ies,  held  the  true  Conservative  Scrip- 
tural ground  on  this  question — that  the  doctrine  that  slave- 
holding  is  always  sinful,  without  regard  to  circumstances, 


43 

is  unscriptural,  and  is,  like  all  error,  pernicious  in  its  influ- 
ence. Like  Shylock  of  old,  you  harp  on  "  the  bond !  the 
Tjond  !"  But  the  written  conditions  of  that  bond  were  not 
the  only  terms  of  the  gift.  There  were  understood  and  im- 
plied pledges  that,  as  the  Seminary  was  the  outgrowth,  so 
it  should  continue  to  be  the  exponent  of  sound  Scriptural 
and  Conservative  views.  These  pledges  have  been  openly 
and  grossly  violated.  No  one  knows  this  better  than  your- 
self. It  is  for  me^  not  you,  therefore,  to  talk  of  "  broken 
pledges  " — "  violated  plighted  faith,"  etc. 

For  the  first  two  years  your  conservatism  was  as  pro- 
nounced as  that  of  any  member  of  the  Faculty.     Your  alle- 
gations in  regard  to  the  "  atmosphere  and  surroundings  of 
the  Seminary,"  and  its  being  an  "  outpost  and  bulwark  of 
slavery,"  are  all  afterthoughts.      In  your  proposed  com- 
mentary on  Peter,  you  discussed  the  subject  of  Slavery,  and 
stated  and  defended  at  length  the  church  doctrine  on  that 
subject,  and  opposed  the  abolition  doctrine  that  slavehold- 
ing  was  sinful  per  se.     You  read  it  to  Drs.  Riee  and  Ilalsey, 
and  received  their  approval.     You  were  given  to  the  re- 
cital of  an  anecdote,  that :  On  being  invited  by  a  Congre- 
gationalist   minister   to  attend  a   Congregationalist   Con- 
A'ention  in  Chicago,  you  said  no  :    If  you  were  to  attend, 
you  might  offer  this   resolution :    "  Resolved,  That   when 
we    get    to    Heaven,   we  will   not   sit    down  with    Abra- 
ham, Isaac  and  Jacob,  for  they  were  slaveholders,  and  we 
have  no  evidence  they  ever  repented  of  their  sin."     You 
have  spoken  of  your  refusal  to  allow  the  Chicago  Tribune 
to  come  into  your  house — "  that  vile,  radical  sheet,  was 
unfit  to  be  read  in  any  family."     You  rejoiced  with  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Assembly  of  1859,  after  his  return  from  the  As- 
sembly, in  the  defeat  of  Dr.  MacMaster  and  the  views  he 
represented.      In   Deoeraber,   1860,  immediately  after  the 
Rev.  Dr.  VanDyke,  of  Brooklyn,  had^  preached  his  well 
known  sermon  on  "  The  Character  and  Influence  of  Aboli- 
tionism," you  wrote  to  him  a  highly  congratulatory  letter, 
intimating  your  full  approval  of  his  views,  and  your  disap- 
probation of  those  whose  favor  you  are  now  so  anxious  to 
<;ourt. 


44 

But  I  am  not  so  much  offended  at  your  liaving  thrown  off 
the  mask  you  so  long  wore,  as  disgusted  at  your  having,  by 
wearing  it,  got  yourself  into  a  Professor's  Chair. 

So  much  for  your  alleged  "  conscious  offenses."  They 
have  been  shown  to  be  without  foundation.  How  then  is 
your  i)resent  liostility  to  the  former  management  of  the 
Seminary  to  be  explained  ? 

The^rs^  actual  ground  of  disaffection,  or  defection,  on  your 
part  so  far  as  known,  was  the  action  of  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee in  1861,  after  the  resignation  of  Dr.  Kice,  in  appoint- 
ing Dr.  Scott  instead  of  yourself  to  teach  Theology.  You 
took  offense  at  this,  and  threatened  to  resign — so  expressed 
yourself  to  an  Elder  in  tlie  chureh,  and  member  of  the  Execu- 
tive Committee.  This  it  would  seem  dates  the  commence- 
ment of  your  aspirations  to  the  Professorship  of  Theology. 

Tha  second  (known)  offense  to  you  Avas  the  application^, 
as  show^n,  of  only  $25,000  to  each  Professor's  Chair ; — and  the 
third  rock  of  offense,  tlic  declination  of  the  North  Church 
to  accept  you  as  their  pastor. 

Nor  was  your  original  position  in  the  Seminary  so  entirely 
unsought  by  you  as  you  would  fain  have  the  ])ublic  believe. 
You  say  .*  "  Urged  by  the  special  friends  of  the  Seminary, 
and  notwithstanding  it  subjected  me  to  much  pecuniary 
sacrifice,  I,  at  length,  accepted  the  appointment."  You  may 
have  forgotten  your  letter  to  Dr.  Kice  previous  to  the  Assem- 
bly of  1859,  inquiring  of  him  if  there  was  any  opening  for 
you  in  the  West — adding  that  you  had  to  leave  Brooklyn. 

You  attempt  to  excite  odium  against  me  because  I  made 
donations  to  two  Institutions  in  Virginia — the  Union  The- 
ological Seminary,  in  my  native  State  ;  and  Washington 
College,  in  my  native  county.  You  say  :  "  Soon  as  the 
throes  of  tlie  rel)ellion  were  sufficiently  quieted  to  })ermit  it, 
I  sent  my  approval  of  their  course  in  tlie  form  of  money  to 
'  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  and  the  College  in  Lex- 
ington^ "  which  is  simply  false.  The  amo;int  of  "this  ben- 
efaction "  being  $25,000,  I  said  in  my  letter :  "  I  soon  after 
donated  to  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  of  Virginia, 
for  the  endowment  of  one  of  its  JTrofessorships,  |t30,000, — 
not  desiring  to  withdraw  for  my  personal  use  any  portion  of 


45 

•what  I  had  donated  for  the  benefit  of  the  church  " — 7iot  to 
"the  "  College  at  Lexington !"  My  donation  to  Washington 
College  was  a  separate  matter  entirely. 

Whatever  wrong  may  have  been  done  in  time  past  by 
persons  connected  with  these  institutions ;  in  one  respect 
they  differ  widely  from  you  and  your  friends.  Xow  that  the 
war  has  ended,  they  do  not  still  seek  to  keep  up  the  strife, 
but  have  gone  quietly  to  work  to  build  up  Institutions  needed 
both  by  the  church  and  the  country.  If  you  and  your 
friends  had  pursued  a  similar  course,  this  controversy  would 
not  have  occurred.  It  is  more  than  absurd  for  Christian 
men  to  boast  of  their  loyalty  and  their  love  of  country  who 
•continue  to  show  a  bitterness  and  vindictiveness  of  feeling 
which  even  men  of  the  world  rebuke. 

But  is  it  really  true  that  those  who  now  give  money  to  assist 
Southern  Institutions  thereby  express  approval  of  the  Rebel- 
lion ?  Did  Henry  Ward  Beecher  express  his  approval  of 
the  Rebellion,  when  he  gave  money  to  this  same  Washing- 
ton College  ?  Did  any  one  think  of  charging  Mr.  Peabody 
with  approval  of  the  Rebellion  when  he  made  his  princely 
donation  for  Educational  purposes  to  the  States  recently  in 
rebellion  ?  Does  it  not  argue  a  narrow  mind  and  unchris- 
tian spirit  in  any  man,  much  more  in  a  minister  of  the  Gos- 
pel, and  still  more  in  a  teacher  of  ministers,  thus  to  criticise 
such  benefactions,  the  very  design  of  which  was  to  conciliate 
the  two  sections  of  the  country,  so  sadly  alienated,  and  to 
aid  them  in  their  deep  poverty — the  cries  of  which  may  never 
have  reached  your  ears  ?  Is  this  any  part  of  the  doctrine 
taught  in  your  Seminary  ?  Is  this  in  accord  with  the  com- 
mand of  Christ :  "  Love  your  enemies  ?"  Has  the  Episco- 
;pal  Church  of  the  North  expressed  its  approval  of  the  Re- 
bellion, by  inviting  the  Southern  branch  of  the  church  to 
return,  and  by  sending  men  and  money  to  build  up  churches 
:and  Institutions  of  learning  in  the  South  ?  Is  the  spirit 
manifested  by  you  to  be  fostered  in  our  Theological  Semin- 
raries  ?  Are  the  young  men  who  go  from  them  to  make  it 
•one  object  of  their  ministry  to  keep  up  this  bitterness  and 
:strife  ?  If  so,  well  may  any  Christian  man  decline  giving 
money  to  tliem.     This  proscriptive  spirit  is  not  content  to 


46 

vent  itself  against  the  South.  It  is  equally  intolerant  tow- 
ard those  "  great  and  good  men  "  at  the  JVo^rth  who  opposed 
"  the  Spring  resolutions ;"  and  all  who,  like  them,  would  keep' 
the  church  out  of  the  political  strifes  of  the  times. 

But  further,  you  say :  "  Why  should  one  alone,  of  all  the 
donors,  past,  present  and  to  come,  claim  and  be  accorded 
the  right  of  control  ?  If  the  principle  is  valid  and  recog- 
nized in  his  case,  Avhy  not  also  in  theirs  ?"  The  riglit  of 
control  has  never  been  assumed  by  me.  The  same  answer 
must  of  course  be  given  to  all,  as  to  one.  It  must  be  alike 
to  all  as  to  one  a  question  of  Justice  and  right.  Misman- 
agement by  the  Assembly  and  Directors  may  destroy,  in- 
stead of  building  up,  any  such  institution,  while  the  just 
rights  of  no  single  contributor  can  be  disregarded  with  im- 
punity. Where  the  responsibility  properly  lies,  there  it 
must  be  met.  You  have  undershot  tlie  mark  entirely,  when 
you  say :  "  The  plain  tenor  of  your  letter  is,  that  had  JTbut 
thought,  felt,  spoken  and  acted  as  you  supposed  I  would,, 
or  as  you  willed  I  should,  the  bond  woidd  have  been  paid''''! 
And  you  thereupon  volunteer  to  fill  one  entire  page  of  the 
J^esbyter,  professedly  in  "  self-vindication,"  but  really  for 
the  support  of  your  Professorship,  and  in  abuse  of  me ;  while,, 
I  repeat,  the  question  of  my  "  dishonored  bond,"  as  between 
the  General  Assembly  and  myself,  had  been  fully  discussed 
and  disposed  of  between  Mr.  Williams  and  myself  before 
you  commenced  writing. 

It  must  be  apparent,  however,  that  while  tlie  issue  be- 
tween the  General  Assembly  and  myself  was  taken  \ipon  the 
action  of  that  body  anterior  to  your  transfer  to  the  Professor- 
ship of  Theology,  when  that  transfer  was  made,  it  might  then 
properly  have  been,  and  should  now  be,  embraced  as  one  of 
the  reasons  why,  if  continued  there,  the  $75,000  should  be 
returned  to  me  and  those  acting  Avith  me.  What  fair- 
minded  and  '\ra\):ivi\ii\  minister  of  the  G^ojffpe/ could  justify 
keeping  a  man  in  the  chair  of  Theology  (bearing  my  name) 
who  could  be  guilty  of  your  demagogical  conduct,  in  talk- 
ing about  my  "  grave  act  as  it  respects  la-w  and  morals  " — 
"  pretexts  for  such  a  crime  " — the  "  spoiling  of  Peter  " — 
"  offer  to  buy  sacred  rights  and  powers " — "  such   thing* 


47 

were  called  Simony,"  etc.  And  all  this  for  what  ?  After  our 
having  been  set  aside  by  the  Assembly,  and  relieved  by  its  ac- 
tion ixoxa.  further  responsibility  in  connection  with  the  Semi- 
nary ;  and  after  the  other  side  having  utterly  failed  to  obtain 
the  requisite  means  for  sustaining  the  Institution — the  "  Fi- 
nancial Agent,  of  eminent  fitness  and  excellence,"  as  you  say, 
having  informed  me,  in  connection  with  his  application  for 
help,  that  he  had  thoroughly  canvassed  Illinois,  Ohio  and 
Iowa,  and  nothing  further  could  be  depended  upon  from 
those  States,  and  that  the  prospect  was  not  good  for  collect- 
ing for  the  Seminary  in  Wisconsin  or  Minnesota — after  these 
things,  I  say,  and  informed  as  I  was  also  by  the  Treasurer 
that  thei-e  would  not  be  money  enough  to  get  through  the 
session  with ;  that  I  should,  under  such  circumstances,  have 
proposed  to  "  assist  in  placing  it  on  a  solid  financial  basis, 
if  the  General  Assembly  will  provide  for  such  a  corps  of  pro- 
fessors as  the  original  one,  and  a  corresponding  working 
majority  of  Directors,"  thus  only  maJcing  right  the  wrong 
done  to  tis — this,  you  say,  "  was  called  Simony !" 

Not  that  I  thought  of  "  ejecting''^  you  from  oftice,  or  even 
that  you  would  make  the  issue  with  the  Assembly  of  being 
sacrificed  by  that  body.  Neither  of  these  things  occurred 
to  me.  .  I  had  supposed  it  even  possible  that  you  might  be 
disposed  to  let  the  General  Assembly  consider  and  decide 
the  case  with  a  view  to  promoting  in  the  best  way  the  best 
interests  of  the  church,  without  reference  to  yourself  per- 
sonally— ready  yourself  even  to  resign  your  professorship, 
hould  that  sacrifice  be  necessary  to  save  the  institution,  or, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  Assembly,  to  do  justice  to  all  con- 
cerned. 

I  may  not  pass  unnoticed  the  further  demagogism  of 
your  reference  to  V  human  freedom  " — "  Fort  Sumter  had 
fallen" — "  slavery  and  rebellion  " — and  such  miserable  clap- 
trap as  furnishes  the  chief  staple  of  certain  depraved  politi- 
cal sheets ;  but  I  say  again,  what  church  unity  can  be  ex- 
pected so  long  as  such  agitation  is  continued  ?  When  are 
we  to  look  for  the  return  of  brotherly  love  and  Christian 
fellowship  so  long  as  those  aspiring  to  fill  the  high  places 
of  the  church  indulge  in  such  wrath  and  bitterness  ?    Such 


48 

demonstrations  of  passion  and  violence  may  have  been  par- 
donable during  the  exciting  periods  of  the  war,  when  great 
national  interests  were  at  stake  and  great  sacrifices  were  re- 
quired. But  now  that  that  great  conflict  is  past,  and  its 
issues  settled,  religion  and  patriotism  alike  require  the  exer- 
cise of  mutual  forbearance,  and  the  pursuit  of  those  things 
which  tend  to  peace. 

Yours,  resjjectfully 

c.  ir.  Mccormick. 


LETTER  OF  DR.  K  L.  RICE. 

40,  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York, 
January  2,  1869. 

Rev.  N.  L.  Rige,  D.  D. — Mxj  Dear  Sir: — Having  just 
received  a  remarkable  letter  from  Dr.  Lord,  in  which  he  ac- 
cuses me,  if  I  understand  him,  of  being  the  instrument  of 
producing  an  atmosphere  around  the  Seminary  at  Chicago, 
*'  not  so  much  that  of  Lake  Michigan  as  of  Chesapeake 
Bay;"  and  in  which  "the  Professors  were  expected  (by 
me  of  course)  to  be  exponents  of  Southern  ideas,  and  de- 
fenders, if  necessary,  of  Southern  institutions,"  etc. ;  it  has 
occurred  to  me  that  you  can  more  appropriately  than  I 
reply  to  this  portion  of  his  letter,  and  accordingly  I  send 
you  a  copy  of  his  letter  for  such  correction  as  your  know- 
ledge and  convenience  may  enable  you  to  write,  wliieh  will 
oblige. 

Very  truly  yours, 

c.  H.  Mccormick. 


New  Brunswick,  Jan.  4,  1S69. 

Mr.  C.  H.  McCoRMicK — J/y  Dear  Sir : — I  liave  just  read 
your  note  of  this  date.  It  is  due  to  you,  and  perhaps  to 
myself,  to  give,  as  far  as  I  am  able,  the  information  neces 


49 

«ary  to  vindicate  you  from  the  charge  which,  I  regret  to 
learn,  Dr.  Lord  has  made  against  you.     I  will  say,  then — 

1.  I  never  had  the  slightest  intimation  that  you  desired 
the  Professors  in  the  Theological  Seminary  to  take  any 
other  ground  on  the  subject  of  slavery  than  that  which  the 
Presbyterian  church  had  ever  occupied.  The  last  deliver- 
ance on  that  subject  by  the  General  Assembly,  previous  to 
the  organization  of  the  Seminary,  was  in  1845.  Of  that 
paper,  it  is  well  known,  I  was  the  author.  It  was  fully  en- 
dorsed by  the  Princeton  Jievietc,  and  has  more  than  once, 
since  that  time,  been  declared  by  the  Assembly  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  all  preceding  deliverances.  And  even  since  the 
war  excitement  began,  our  Board  of  Publication  has  pub- 
lished a  pamphlet,  written  by  Dr.  McGill,  of  Princeton,  in 
-which  the  defense  of  that  paper  has  a  ])rominent  place.  I 
always  understood  you  to  be  satisfied  with  the  doctrine  of 
our  church  on  that  subject. 

2.  Whilst  my  connection  with  the  Seminary  continued,  I 
never  knew  you  to  inquire  into  the  opinions  of  the  Profes- 
sors in  relation  to  slavery;  or  to  attempt,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, to  control  or  to  influence  their  opinions  or  teachings 
on  this  or  any  other  subject.     I  certainly  was  not  conscious 

•  of  the  peculiar  "  atmosphere "  Dr.  Lord  describes,  or  of 
"  the  air,  tone,  color  and  general  drift  of  things,"  which 

'Seem  to  have  awakened  his  apprehensions.  Indeed,  al- 
though associated  with  him  first  in  Cincinnati,  and  after- 
wards in  Chicago,  if  he  at  all  differed  in  his  views  of  sla- 
very from  the  other  professors  and  myself,  I  was  never 
made  aware  of  such  difference.  Dr.  Lord  had  been  many 
years  in  the  ministry,  and  had  labored  in  the  West,  as  well, 

.  as  in  the  East,  during  the  period  when  both  the  church  and 
the  country  were  intensely  agitated  by  this  subject.  It  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  he  concealed  his  opinions,  much  less 
that  he  designedly  allowed  them  to  he  misunderstood.  Nor 
is  it  to  be  supposed  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  controver- 
sy which  immediately  preceded  the  locating  and  organiz- 
ing of  the  Seminary  at  Chicago,  and  which  was  terminated 
by  the  Assembly  which  elected  him  to  a  Professorship.     I 

.believe  he  was  nominated  through  my  influence  ;  and  I  was 
4 


50 

one  of  "  the  special  friends  of  the  Seminary,"  "  wh<j  urged" 
his  acceptance.  I  piirsued  this  course,  not  only  because  I 
believed  him  qualified  for  tlie  chair  to  which  he  was  elected, 
but  because,  from  long  acquaintance,  I  thought  I  had  abun- 
dant evidence  that  his  views  and  mine  were  in  harmony. 
And  I  felt  quite  certain  that,  before  he  accepted  the  Profes- 
sorship, he  understood  the  kind  of  "  atmosphere  "  into  which 
he  was  coming,  "  and  the  general  drift  of  things  "  which  he 
would  [meet  in  Chicago.  He  certainly  knew  my  views  of 
slavery ;  and  he  knew  that  you  did  not  object  to  them. 

3.  It  is  due  to  you  further  to  state,  that  during  my  edi- 
torial connection  with  the  Mfpositor,  you  never  attempted 
to  control  its  columns ;  and  it  certainly  was  not  the  "  expo- 
nent of  Southern  ideas,"  In  the  winter  of  1860-61, 1  pub- 
lished in  the  Exj^ositor  a  lengthy  correspondence  between 
Rev.  Mr.  Matthews,  of  Georgia,  and  myself;  in  which  I 
wrote,  in  the  strongest  terms,  against  secession,  and  defend- 
ed the  paper  on  slavery,  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  1818 — universally  regarded  as  strongly  anti-slavery,  and 
condemned  by  Mr.  Mathews  as  an  abolitionist  document.  I 
never  heard  from  you  any  objection  to  the  publication  of 
such  views  in  your  paper. 

4.  I  ought  further  to  say  that  Dr.  Lord's  memory  is  very 
much  at  fa\ilt,  in  my  opinion,  in  regard  to  the  paper  which, 
as  he  supposes,  oftended  you.  I  feel  confident  that  it  did ' 
not  originate  with  you.  My  recollection  is  that  Rev.  Dr. 
Scott  prepared  the  paper  of  his  own  motion,  and  hoped  that, 
either  as  he  wrote  it,  or  somewhat  modified,  it  might  be 
published  avowedly  by  the  Professors.  He  read  it  to  me, 
1  think,  before  he  showed  it  to  any  one  else.  I  do  not 
think  you  requested  either  of  the  Professors  to  sign  it ;  nor 
did  I  ever  hear  an  intimation,  that  Dr.  Lord  had  offended 
you  by  declining  to  sign  it.  I  am  confident,  likewise,  that 
Dr.  Lord  errs  in  saying  that  before  being  publislied  it  was 
"  materially  altered  and  toned  down."  I  feel  sure  that  I 
put  it  into  the  printer's  hands  without  alteration.  The  pa- 
per was  designed  to  be  conciliatory,  and  to  dissuade  Soiith- 
ern  ministers  from  favoring  secession  ;  but  it  never  occurred 
to  me  that  it  was  designed,  as  Dr.  Lord  represents  it  to  save 
slavery. 


51 

5.  In  a  word,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  you  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  nomination  of  those  who  were  elected  to  Pro- 
fessorships in  the  Seminary;  and  dming  my  connection 
with  the  Seminary,  I  never  heard  an  intimation  from  either 
of  the  Professors  that  you  had,  in  any  Avay,  attempted  to 
influence  their  course.  On  the  contrary,  I  left  the  Seminary, 
not  only  myself  entertaining  the  kindest  feelings  towards 
each  of  my  associates,  but  believing  that  the  most  pleasant 
relations  existed  between  you  and  them.  Indeed  Dr.  Lord 
himself  states,  not  only  that  his  "  reception  "  in  Chicago  was 
"  kind  and  cordial,"  but  that  "  for  many  months"  his  pres- 
ence and  his  labors  merited  no  higher  appreciation  than 
they  received.  During  those  "  many  months,"  and  though 
the  churches  and  the  country  were  intensely  agitated  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  yet  no  difference  of  sentiment  was 
developed  amongst  us ;  and  I  lefc,  after  a  connection  of  two 
years  with  the  Seminary,  hoping  and  believing  that  the  re- 
lations between  those  with  whom  I  had  labored  so  pleas- 
antly, Avould  long  continue  undisturbed. 

Under  this  impression,  I  had  the  happiness,  after  my  re- 
moval to  Xew  York,  of  enabling  the  agent  to  secure  the 
money  for  the  erection  of  a  Seminary  building,  and  thus  of 
recovering  the  valuable  lands  in  Chicago,  which  had  been 
forfeited.  Why  those  who  had  done  little  or  nothing  for 
the  Seminary,  sought,  in  1866,  to  get  the  control  of  it,  and 
to  secure,  of  their  party,  "  a  working  majority,"  I  do  not 
profess  to  know.  It  has  not  been  common,  I  am  sui*e,  thus 
to  treat  those  who  have  given  liberally  of  labor  and  money 
to  the  church.  I  cannot  but  express  my  deep  regret  that 
an  institution  so  important  to  the  church,  and  which  enter- 
ed upon  its  career  with  prospects  so  cheering,  should  have 
been  crippled,  apparently  for  no  cause.  Slavery  had  ceased 
to  exist ;  the  war  was  over.  The  time  surely  had  come 
when  the  church  should  have  aimed  to  unite  her  forces,  and 
go  forward  in  her  great  work.  Having  said  so  much,  I  owe 
it  to  myself  to  say — that  I  have  had  nothing  to  do,  directly 
or  indirectly,  with  having  my  name  brought  before  the  Ge- 
neral Assembly  in  connection  with  a  Professorship,  since  I 
resigned  my  place  in  the  Institution. 

Very  truly,  N.  L.  RIC     E 


52 


Frm  the  Cincinnati  Presbyter^  Feb.  17,  1869. 

DR.  LORD  TO  MR.  McCORMICK. 

CraGAGO,.i^e&.  9,  1869. 
Mr.  Cyrus  II.  Mc  Cormick  : 

Sir: — In  view  of  its  character,  my  thanks  are  due  for 
your  renewed  attack  upon  me,  through  your  accredited 
organ,  the  North-  Western  Presbyterian.  It  certainly  puts 
me  out  of  the  number  of  those  of  whom  Christ  said :  "  Woe 
unto  you,  when  all  men  shall  speak  well  of  you."  At  the 
same  time  I  am  not  without  hope ;  it  leaves  me  in  the 
goodly  fellowship  of  others  to  whom  he  said :  "  Blessed  are 
ye  when  men  shall  revile  you,  and  say  all  manner  of  evil 
against  you,  falsely,  for  my  sake."  Whether  I  may  assume 
this  or  not,  I  am  sure  your  protracted  effort  requires  only  a 
brief  answer.  Virulent  as  it  is,  it  is  also,  for  the  most  part, 
its  own  best  antidote. 

1.  To  your  profuse  personal  aspersions  I  make  no  reply. 
To  do  so  would  not  become  me.  Of  the  mass  of  second- 
hand puerilities  you  adduce  as  their  ground,  every  one  is, 
either  wholly  untrue,  or  it  is  untrue  in  the  relation  and  as- 
pect in  which  you  give  it.  Let  the  sermon  on  Slavery  illus- 
trate. In  the  confidence  of  private  personal  friendship  I  did 
read  it  to  one  of  the  two  persons  you  name.  I  read  it  to  him, 
simply  and  only,  to  learn  how  my  view  of  the  Bible  teach- 
ing as  to  that  vexed  matter  would  impress  a  candid  Southern 
man.  The  utterly  perverse  and  ignoble  use  you  make  of 
this  incident  will  be  plain  when  I  state  that  I  preached  the 
sermon  before  my  removal  to  Chicago,  as  the  expression  of 
my  then  views  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  I  have  preached 
the  same  sermon  since  I  came  to  Chicago,  and  since  the 
war,  witliout  the  change  of  a  thought  or  word,  as  tlie  ex- 
pression of  my  present  views  on  th6  same  subject.  It  does 
not  maintain  what  is  called  the  jy^r  se  doctrine ;  but  it  does 
earnestly  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 


53 

as  that  is  set  forth  in  the  full  and  fundamental  exposition  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  1818  ;  and  its  main  purpose  is  to 
prove  that  slavery  has  no  reftl  ground  in  the  word  of  God,, 
and  ought  to  have  no  being  among  men. 

2.  The  principles  and  reasonings  in  my  defense  against 
your  first  assault  yon  do  not  venture  to  question.  You  do 
attempt,  however,  to  impugn  its  record  of  facts,  though 
without  success.  I  made  no  statement,  sir,  in  that  record^ 
except  on  my  personal  knowledge  of  its  truth,  save  only 
one,  and  that  I  made  on  your  published  testimony.  The 
wave,  therefore,  has  dashed  against  the  rock,  and  the  rock 
remains.  The  single  instance  in  which  Di*.  Rice,  whose  aid 
you  invoke,  thinks  my  memory  is  at  faiilt,  must  still  stand 
as  I  gave  it.  I  cannot  concede  to  his  want  of  recollection 
what  I  know  to  be  true.  If,  in  the  other  instance,  resting  on 
your  own  authority,  any  reader  of  my  letter  understood  me 
to  mean  that  your  gifts  to  those  Southern  institutions,  were 
both  and  all  pledged  to  us,  it  was  an  error.  What  I  meant 
was  this,  that  in  the  whole  amount  you  gave  to  them — the 
sum  of  $25,000 — for  which  we  hold  your  legal  bond,  was 
included.  This  was  your  public  confession.  Xot  feeling  at 
liberty  to  apply  to  your  private  use  the  money  you  had 
solemnly  pledged  to  this  seminary,  you  sent  it  elsewhere. 
Witliholding  it  from  us  on  account  of  our  alleged  political 
views,  you  yet  transferred  it  to  a  seminary  whose  professor 
of  Theology  was  a  captain  in  the  rebel  army  ;  and,  still  fur- 
ther, while  persisting  in  this  proscription  of  us,  for  our  opin- 
ions, you  sent  an  additional  sum  of  thousands  of  dollars  to 
another  institution  whose  president' was  the  military  head  of 
the  rebellion.  These,  I  suppose  to  be,  the  exact  facts.  Most 
people  think  they  have  a  deep  significance.  This  man,  they 
say,  purposely  discriminates  against  freedom  in  favor  of 
slavery,  and  to  the  extent  of  violating  his  word  and  bond 
The  love  of  freedom  he  treats  as  a  crime,  while  fighting  for 
slavery  he  rewards  as  a  virtue  ;  and  he  does  all  this  in  the 
holy  name  of  religion  ! 

3.  I  am  most  happy,  sir,  to  say  that  your  second  assault 
upon  me  has  one  merit.  In  the  circumstances  it  is  a  great 
merit.     Despite  its  quality,  in  every  other  respect,  it  has 


54 

the  merit  of  being  a  demonstration.  If  after  your  first  ex- 
hibit, there  remained  anywhere  one  single  mind  that  did 
not  see  tlirougli  tlie  thousand  j^retexts  and  disguises  thrown 
around  the  real  root  of  all  our  woes  in  Chicago,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  even  that  mind  should  now  not  see.  'That  root  is 
laid  bare.  Our  original  sin  is  uncovered.  The  deep  and 
hidden  source  of  every  actual  transgression  is  opened  to  the 
light ;  and,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  your  hand  has 
done  it.  Here  is  the  fatal  grievance ;  not  that  the  seminary 
has  been  turned  aside  from  the  sacred  ends  for  which  it  was 
founded  by  holy  men  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago ; 
not  that  the  senior  professor  has  been  remiss  in  diligence  or 
fidelity  with  respect  to  any  one  duty  devolved  upon  him  by 
his  office ;  not  that  the  young  men  resorting  here  are  not 
faithfully  and  thoroughly  instructed  in  the  whole  sum  of 
Christian  truth  and  duty  bearing  on  the  office  and  work  of 
the  gospel  ministry.  These  things,  or  any  one  of  them, 
would  be  a  just  cause  of  complaint.  But  the  immediate 
wound  is  this ;  Your  offer  of  the  endowment,  you  assert, 
was  made  on  a  certain,  not  expressed  but  implied  basis  as 
to  slavery ;  it  was  accepted  by  the  General  Assembly  on 
that  basis ;  and  all  the  original  professors  were  elected  to 
their  office  on  that  basis  ;  and  that  basis,  it  is  unmistakably 
implied,  binds  the  Assembly  and  the  professors,  i7i  mternnm^ 
to  all  the  logical,  ethical  and  historical  sequences  of  the 
sacred  system ! 

I  will  waste  no  time  in  comment  on  this  plain  self-exposi- 
tion; this  more  than  signal  self-condemnation.  The  near 
future  will  show  whether  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these 
United  States  is  about,  to  deny  its  ancient  faith,  revoke  its 
noble  testimonies,  and  sell  its  glory  for  ineffable  shame. 

In  the  meantime,  permit  me  to  recall  a  suggestive  passage 
in  history.  I  have  reason  to  think  it  occurred  in  your 
presence.  The  venerable  Dr.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge  was 
charged  with  precisely  the  same  offenses,  in  kind,  which  you 
allege  against  the  senior  professor  in  Chicago.  Because  of 
these  offenses  he  was  no  longer  a  fit  person  to  teach  theology, 
and  ought  to  be  displaced. 

During  the  session  of  the  General  Assembly  in  Columbus, 


55 

in  1862,  this  grave  matter  was  carefully  considered.    As  the 
result,  and  by  an  immense  vote,  that  venerable  body 

Resolved^  That  the  Assembly  does  not  concede,  that  in 
accepting  a  professor's  chair  in  the  seminary.  Dr.  Brecken- 
ridge  did  yield  the  right  of  expi-essing  his  views  freely  in 
relation  to  matters  of  great  national  concernment ;  and,  in 
its  judgment,  his  bold  and  patriotic  stand  in  reference  to 
the  great  conflict  now  in  progress,  entitles  him  to  the  grati- 
tude of  the  church  and  the  country. 

"With  due  consideration, 

I  am  yours, 

WILLIS  LORD. 


For  the  North-  'Western  Presbyterian. 
A  CORRECTION. 

In  Mr.  McCormick's  letter  published  in  your  issue  of  Jan. 
30th,  there  is  an  item  respecting  an  interview  between  him 
a,nd  myself,  in  which  he  must  have  misunderstood  me.  It 
is  due  to  our  churches  in  the  Northwest,  to  say  that  where 
the  claims  of  our  Seminary  have  been  presented,  they  have 
nlmost  invariably  made  liberal  contributions.  But  a  small 
proportion  of  them  up  to  this  time  has  been  visited,  and 
yet  something  more  than  fifty  thousand  dollars  have  been 
secured,  in  cash,  notes,  and  other  obligations,  within  the 
past  fifteen  months.  My  faith  is  strong  enough  to  believe 
that  when  they  are  all  visited  within  the  Synods  represented 
in  the  institution,  we  will  obtain  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars.  We  were  never  in  a  more  prosperous 
condition  than  at  present. 

W.  B.  TRUAX, 

General  Ayent. 


50 


Article  from  the  Virginia  Gazette^  March  \Oth  1869,  writ- 
ten hy  the  Hon.  John  TF^  JBrochenhrough^  Hector  of 
Washington  College. 

CYRUS  H.  McCORMICK  AND  DR.  LORD. 

Messrs.  Editors  : — The  vigorous  manner  in  -whieh  yoa 
are  editing  your  paper  is  worthy  of  all  commendation,  but 
I  apprehend  you  have  made  a  grave  mistake  in  indulging  in 
those  sharp  strictures  on  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Lord,  in  your 
last  week's  issue.-  You  are  actually  so  inconsiderate  as  to 
complain  that  the  Trustees  of  the  Theological  Seminary,  at 
Chicago,  have  secured  "  a  good  working  majority "  of 
Radicals  in  their  Board,  and  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lord  has 
lent  himself  to  the  base  i)Ui'posc  of  perverting  the  munifi- 
cent charity  of  Cyrus  II.  MeCormick  to  the  promotion  of 
Radicalism,  and  in  contravention  of  the  declared  wishes  of 
the  donor !  Declared  wishes  of  the  donor,  indeed  !  As 
my  uncle  Toby  exclaimed  to  Corporal  Trim,  with  an  em- 
phasis of  rebuke  which  brought  the  Corporal  up  all  stand- 
ing— on  one  leg! — and  instantly  silenced  his  impertinent 
suggestion — Fiddlesticks  !  Are  you  sui;e  that  you,  rebel 
editors  that  you  are,  do  not  deserve  an  equally  stunning 
rebuke?  Have  not  the  *■'■  good icorking.majorty''''  and.  Dr, 
Lord  acted  in  this  matter  in  most  perfect  hannony  with  the 
avowed  teachings  of  Radical  ethics  ?  Who  dare  question 
the  ^orthodoxy  of  that  sublime  code  of  morality  which  inciU- 
cates  the  maxim,  so  well  done  into  verse  by  Wordsworth — 

"  The  good  old  rule  sufflceth  them, 
That  he  should  taka  who  has  the  power, 
And  he  should  keep  who  can." 

And  who  is  Cyrus  H.  MeCormick  that  he  dare  refuse  pay- 
ment of  his  "  dishonored  bond  ?"  Born  on  Virginia  soil,  of 
Virginia  parents,  and  himself  little  better  than  a  rebel  sym- 
pathiser !  W^hat  right  has  such  as  he  to  feel  an  emotion  of 
pity  when  he  casts  a  saddening  eye  over  the  beautiful  land 
of  his  birth,  and  beholds  her  altars  and  hearths  prostrate 
under  the  Vandal  hoof  of  War?    W^hat  right  to  yield  to  a 


57 

natural  impulse  to  assist  in  restoring  her  waste  places  to 
something  of  their  radiant  beauty  ere  the  blight  of  inter- 
necine war  had  fallen  upon  them  ?  Was  it  not  incumbent 
on  him,  as  a  true  and  loyal  man,  to  forget  the  home  of  his 
birth  and  infancy,  with  all  the  clustering  associations  en- 
twining themselves  about  his  heart,  and  remember  only  her 
frightfully  enormous  crime  ?  If  nothing  short  of  the  sublime 
sternness  of  Roman  virtue  could  accomplish  this  task,  why, 
he  should  have  proved  himself  a  Roman,  and,  falling  below 
that  high  standard,  he  has  made  himself  an  object  for  Radi- 
cal scorn  to  point  its  slow,  unmoving  finger  at !  And  is  not 
Cyrus  II.  McCormick  a  rebel  sympathiser?  Behold  the 
proof !  He  has  lavished  his  bounty  on  two  such  notoriously 
rebel  institutions  as  the  Theological  Seminary,  of  Virginia, 
and  Washington  College,  the  latter,  led  by  the  arch-traitor 
and  rebel^  R.  E.  Lee,  and  has  dishonored  his  bond  by  refus- 
ing payment  to  the  "  good  working  majority ^^"^  of  the  Chica- 
go Trustees  and  the  fit  exponent  of  Radical  Abolitionism, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Lord  !  Is  he  not  doubly  dishonored  in  bestow- 
ing his  bounty  on  unrepentant  rebels,  and  denying  it  to 
those  pre-eminently  worthy  persons  w^ho  know  how  to  turn 
their  loyalty  to  account,  and  make  it  a  first-rate  paying  in- 
vestment ?  Has  he  not,  in  fact,  given  away  their  money, 
and  cannot  the  Trustees  and  Dr.  Lord  follow  it  into  the 
hands  of  the  rebel  beneficiaries  and  recover  it  back,  as  so 
much  money  had  and  received  to  their  use  ?  Why  not  ? 
I  have  known  worse  cases  than  this  gained  in  a  court  of 
justice.  Who  knows  but  when  the  Bench,  Bar,  and  Jury 
Box  have  been  thoroughly  expurgated  of  every  trace  of 
rebellion,  and  when  loyalty  rules  supreme  within  our  bor- 
ders, such  a  suit  might  be  brought  with  most  encouraging 
prospects  of  success,  in  this  District  Xo.  1  ?  Would  it  not 
be  good  policy  in  the  Seminary  and  College  to  disgorge  the 
ill-gotten  fruits  of  violated  plighted  faith,  and  disarm  resent- 
ment by  laying  these,  spolia  opima,  in  the  lap  of  the  peer- 
less Institiition  which  sits,  in  imperial  beauty,  in  the  Queen 
City  of  the  Lakes  ?  Prenez  garde  !  I  tremble  to  think,  Messrs. 
Editors,  how  thoughtlessly  you  have  imperilled  the  material 
interests  of  the  College  in  our  midst,  by  rousing  the  sleeping 


S8 

lion  of  Fanaticism  !  Sleeping  lion,  indeed !  Fanaticism 
never  sleeps — while  there  is  money  in  keeping  awake  !  You 
may  catch  a  weasel  asleep,  but  Fanaticism  has  too  well  re- 
warded its  carpet-bag  devotees  ever  to  be  allowed  to  fall 
into  the  gentlest  kind  of  slumber.  No !  eternal  vigilance  is 
the  price  of  spoils !  The  tiger  does  sometimes  sleep  in  his 
jungle  and  let  his  prey  pass  unscathed  and  harmless ;  but 
Fanaticism,  more  watchful  than  either,  is  ever  ready  to 
spring  at  the  throats  of  this  doomed  people,  and  to  tear  and 
rend  them  with  its  claws  and  teeth  of  insatiable  greed! 
Her's  is, 

"  The  immortal  hate,  and  study  of  revenge 
And  courage  never  to  submit  or  j-ield." 

Satanic,  but  sublime ! 

Cyrus  II.  McCormick  has  done  a  very  naughty  thing,  and 
offended  the  radical  and  dominant  clique  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  North,  quite  past  forgiveness !     Possessed  of  such 
old-fashioned  notions  as,  "  peace  on  earthy  good  will  toicards 
men'''' — for  his  was  the  evangel  of  love  and  not  of  hate — he 
munificently  endowed  three  Chairs  of  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary of  Chicago  and  promised  a  like  endowment  of  a  fourth, 
at  a  future  time,  on  a  like  princely  scale  of  $25,000  each,    lie 
designed  his  bounty  to  promote  the  cause  of  genuine  Chris- 
tianity, as  in  his  simplicity,  he  understood  it,  without  any 
taint  of  radicalism,  political  or  religious.     All  worked  har- 
moniously  for    a    season,   and    his    bounty  was    applied 
according  to  his  wishes.     But  lo !    a  change ! — Tlie  rest- 
less,  remorseless,   fiend   of  Fanaticism,  entei-s   this   Eden 
and  turns  it   into  Hell !      The   eleemosynary  institutions 
of   the  Church  fall  into   the  hands  of  a   "  good  icorking 
majority  "  of  Radicals,  and  the  pious  Dr.  Loi-d,  after  filling 
the  "  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  "  Chairs,  and  professing  to  incul- 
cate conservative  religious  doctrines,  Avriggles  himself  into 
the  fourth  Chair,  throws  off  the  ugly  mask  of  conservatism, 
dons  the  radiant  one  of  radicalism  and  demands  that  he 
shall  still  be  fed  by  the  bounty  of  the  donor !     The  donor 
demurs  to  a  further  misapplication  of  his  bounty,  the  donee 
falls  into  a  paroxysm  of  holy  horror  at  the  dishonesty  !  of 


59 

•the  donor,  and  gives  utterance  to  his  consuming  wrath  and 
withering  indignation  through  many  cohimns  of  a  conge- 
nial radical  paper !      Xow,  pray,  Messrs.  Editors,  Avhat  is 
there  astonishing  in  all  this  ?    Do  you  really  know  so  little 
of  the  code  of  radical  morality  as  not  to  know  that  there  is 
no  inconsistency  at  all,  in  defending  the  act  of  obtaining  a 
bond  by  false  and  fraudulent  pretences,  as  right  and  Jwsif, 
:and  undertaking  to  prove,  uno  flatu,  that  the  defrauded 
(Obligor  is  guilty  of  dishonesty  in  withholding  payment? 
Now,  'pon  my  soul,  I  pity  you  if  you  cannot  comprehend  so 
.elementary  a  principle  of  ethics  as  that  f     Neither,  I  sup- 
?2)ose,  can  you  be  made  to  comprehend  that  peculiar  system 
of  ethics  which  justified  the  African  slave-trade,  the  prose- 
Mcution  of  it  as  lawful,  pocketed  the  rich  fruits,  (and  the 
richer  the  more  legitimate  !)     These  radicals  are  the  clever- 
..est  and  most  practical  school  of  moralists,  never  turning 
.abolitionist  till  they  had  received  the  full  price  of  their 
.human  freight !     Now,  in  old  times  these  were  the  ethics  of 
the  foot-pad  and  highwayman,  and  we  have  discovered  that 
.the  system  of  the  foot-pad  and  highwayman  is  really  sound, 
but  it  was  not  accepted  as  satisfactory  till  a  great  politico- 
religious  party  made  it  respectable  and  obtained  for  it  uni- 
versal adoption  throughout  all  the  happy  realms  of  radical- 
ism.    If  you  are  such  incorrigible  old  fogies  as  not  to  be  able 
to  elevate  your  minds  to  the  sublime  heights  of  this  new  phil- 
osophy, you  should  be  objects  of  pity  to  all  enlightened 
men  and  women !     If  you  cannot  comprehend  such  truths 
j^ou  may,  at  least,  learn  from  the  hints  I  have  given  that  it 
is  dangerous  to  attempt  their  refutation.    Radicalism  is  now 
rampant  and  a  power  in  the  State.     Let  me  entreat  you,  in 
ati  agony  of  fear,  that  if  you  cannot  "  see  it,"  as  I  think  I 
do,  you  Avill  possess  your  souls  with  a  little  more  of  that 
negative  virtue,  which  all  men  commend  and  few  practice, 
.called 

PRUDENCE. 


60 


From  the  N'orth- Western  Presbyterian^   Chicago^, 
March.  20th,  1869. 

REPLY  TO  DR.  LORD'S  REJOINDER. 

New  York,  March  3,  1869. 

Messrs.  Editors  :  I  had  hoped  it  would  not  be  neces- 
sary for  me  to  ask  any  further  use  of  your  columns,  or  in- 
dulgence of  your  readers,  in  the  prosecution  of  this  Semin- 
ary controversy  ;  but  the  appearance  in  the  Presbyter,  of 
the  IVth  inst.,  of  Dr.  Lord's  letter  in  reply  to  mine  of  16th> 
January,  and  the  note  of  Mr.  Truax,  as  General  Agent,  in 
the  North  Western  of  the  27th  inst.,  make  it  incumbent 
on  me  to  write  another  letter.  The  responsibility  is  not 
mine  for  the  continuance  of  the  controversy,  Avhile  the  im- 
portance of  the  subject  under  discussion  is  understood  and 
admitted. 

In  availing  myself  of  the  ])nvilege  you  accord  me,  I  find 
next  to  nothing  in  Dr.  Lord's  letter  which  I  have  not  al- 
ready refuted.  He  produces  a  repetition  of  his  political  clap- 
trap that  may  as  well  be  eliminated  from  the  case. 

Dr.  Lord  takes  no  issue  with  me  on  the  overwhelming 
evidence  produced  in  my  letter  of  the  16th  of  January  in 
confirmation  of  the  statements  made  in  my  reply  to  the 
Committee  of  Directors,  (1)  as  to  his  offensive  conduct  tow-- 
ards  me,  and  the  consequent  impropriety  of  his  seeking  to 
be  transferred  to  the  Chair  of  Theology  bearing  my  name, 
and  to  be  endowed  by  me  ;  and  (2)  in  refutation  of  his  al- 
leged offenses  towai-ds  me.  The  proof  adduced  as  to  his 
strongly  pi'onounced  conservatism,  and  entire  agreement 
with  the  other  Professors  in  the  Seminary,  when,  and  for 
two  years  after  he  was  elected — even  to  the  date  of  his  as- 
pirations to  the  Professorship  of  Tlieology  and  the  pastorate 
of  the  North  chnrch — was  so  conclusive  that  he  is  forced  to 
concede  it,  and  does  so  by  introducing  his  "  Sermon  on  Sla- 
very," preached  as  he  says,  "before  his  removal  to  Chicago,, 
since  he  came  to  Chicago,  and  since  the  war," — not  to  prove- 


61 

IJiow  he  so  soon  found,  on  reaching  Chicago,  that  some  one 
was  to  be  disappointed  in  expecting  him  to  support  the 
'"  bulwark  of  slavery ;"  nor  yet  to  maintain  "  what  is  called 
.the  per  se  (abolition)  doctrine,"  but  to  show  his  "  earnest 
maintenance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  church  as 
that  is  set  forth  in  the  full  and  fundamental  exposition  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  1818." 

Dr.  Monfort,  also,  in  noticing  his  last  letter,  assumes  and 
gives  assurances  that  his  (Dr.  Lord's)  present  views  are  the 
same  that  they  ever  have  been — conservative — and  entirely 
in  harmony  with  those  of  Dr.  Rice  on  the  question  of  sla- 
very. He  seems  surprised  that  Dr.  Lord's  conservatism 
should  liave  been  questioned  by  me,  remarking  that  "  Mr. 
McCormick  may  not  know  it,  but  we  are  sure  that  Dr.  Lord 
still  holds  with  him,"  in  holding  that  the  true  conservative 
Scriptural  ground  on  this  question  of  slaveholding  is,  that 
it  is  not  "  always  sinful  Avithout  regard  to  circumstances;" 
that  "  Drs.  Rice  and  Lord  agree  perfectly  here;"  and  going 
on  to  say  that  "  this  statement  of  Mr.  McCormick  may  per- 
haps explain  what  he  says  elsewhere  of  Dr.  Van  Dyke's 
sermon,  and  of  the  Chicago  Tribune^  and  of  sitting  down 
with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

Now  I  might  leave  this  question  hei*e,  as  Dr.  Lord  has 
left  it,  to  be  settled  between  his  Radical  friends  and  him- 
self, whether  he  is  at  this  time  a  Radical  or  Conservative  ! 
IRxs,  former  conservatism^  and  agreement  with  the  other  Pro- 
fessors, are  both  proved  and  conceded.  It  is  for  him  to  rec- 
oncile this  fact  with  his  statements  in  regard  to  the  atmos- 
phere which  he  found  on  coming  to  Chicago  ;  the  Seminary 
.  a  bulwark  of  slavery,  and  for  the  defense  of  Southern  ideas, 
etc.,  and  especially  when  he  and  Dr.  Rice  agree  perfectly 
in  their  views  on  slavery  ! 

But  while  startled  for  the  moment  by  this  most  unlooked 
for  turn  in  the  case — the  surprise  of  Dr.  Monfort  at  the 
pains  I  had  taken  to  prove  what  had  been  so  clear  to  him, 
:and  is  now  claimed  by  Dr.  Lord  for  himself  -  and  finding 
myself  still  lampooned  by  him  for  doing  for  Southern  Insti- 
^tutions  what  is  recognized  by  such  men  as  Greely,  13cecher^ 
President  Grant  and  others,  as  meriloriouSy  I  am  led  to  look 


62 

for  a  moment  at  the  quality  of  his  Conservatism  !  "  Thi» 
man,"  he  says,  "purposely  discriminates  against  freedom, 
in  favor  of  slavery,  and  to  the  extent  of  violating  his  Avord 
and  bond.  The  love  of  freedom  he  treats  as  a  crime,  while 
fighting  for  slavery  he  rewards  as  a  virtue  ;  and  he  does  all 
this  in  the  holy  name  of  religion !"  Rather  a  cutting  rebuke, 
to  be  sure,  from  a  brother  Conservative^  after  the  labored 
effort  in  my  last  letter  to  justify  myself  on  this  point !  "  His 
word  and  bond  "  On  these  the  Dr,  again  rings  his  changes. 
I  have  heard  of  "  out-Hcroding  Herod  ;"  but  not  before  of 
out-Shylocking  "  Shylock !" 

He  says,  "  the  single  instance  in  which  Dr.  Rice,  whose 
aid  you  invoke,  thinks  my  memory  is  at  fault  must  still 
stand  as  I  gave  it."  He  forgets  again  that  Dr.  Rice,  with 
his  letter  before  him,  wrote  to  me  :  "  It  is  due  to  you  (me), 
and  perhaps  to  myself  (himself),  to  give,  as  far  as  I  am  able, 
the  information  necessary  to  vindicate  you  from  the  charge 
which  I  regret  to  learn  Dr.  Lord  has  made  against  you." 
He  forgets  also  that  Dr.  Rice  thought  proper  in  his  letter 
to  vindicate  me  against  all  Dr.  Lord's  charges  of  interference 
on  the  question  of  "  Slavery ;"  adding  that,  "  I  felt  quite 
certain  that  before  he  accepted  the  Professorship  he  under- 
stood the  kind  of  '  atmosphere  '  into  which  he  was  coming, 
and  '  the  genei'al  drift  of  things '  which  he  would  meet  in' 
Chicago.  He  certainly  knew  my  views  of  slavery ;  and  he 
knew  that  you  did  not  object  to  them.'''' 

Referring  Dr.  Lord  again  to  Dr.  Rice's  letter  for  the  po- 
sition of  "  the  Presbyterian  churdi  on  the  subject  of  slavery^" 
and  the  evidence  that  I  never  "  desired  the  Professors  in  the 
Theological  Seminar]/  to  take  any  other  ground  on  the  sub' 
ect  of  Slavery  than  that  ichich  the  Presbyterian  Church  has 
ever  occupied, "  I  simply  submit  whether  this  position 
"  binds  the  Assembly  and  the  Professors,  in  aeternum,  to 
all  the  logical,  ethical  and  historical  sequences  of  the  sacred" 
system  " — that  was,  is  not,  and  never  again  can  be  ?  If  not, 
"  the  near  future  will  (in  the  eloquent  language  of  Dr.  Lord 
and  may,  I  admit )  show  Avhcther  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  these  United  States  is  about  to  deny  its  ancient  faith, 
revoke  its  noble  tesumonies,  and  sell  its  glory  for  ineffable- 
shame  !" 


63 

That  "  suggestive  passage  "  in  history  referred  to  by  Dr. 
Lord  as  having  "  occurred  in  your  (my)  presence  (not  recol- 
lected by  me)  during  the  session  of  the  General  Assembly  in 
Columbus  in  1862,"  viz  :  the  resolution  of  the  Assembly  on 
^^  Dr.  Robert  J.  JSreckenridge's^^patrwtism,  which  he  cites 
with  such  self-complacency  ;  modestly  classing  "  the  Se- 
nior Professor  in  Chicago  "  with  that  eminent  divine,  in 
being  "  charged  with  precisely  the  same  offenses,  in  kind  ;" 
and  of  course  anticipating  from  "  that  venerable  body,  in 
the  near  future,"  a  corresponding  resolution  of  "gratitude" 
for  "  his  bold  and  patriotic  stand  in  reference  to  the  great 
C07->fiict  " — but  not  "  now  in  progress^"*  as  in  the  case  of 
Dr.  Breckinridge  !  Let  him  have  this  resolution  by  all 
means,  that  his  name  may  go  down  to  posterity  with  that 
of  "  Dr.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge,"  as  the  two  great  cham- 
pions of  freedom  and  of  the  country's  glory.  Certainly, 
let  justice  be  done  in  this  respect.  But  what  has  this  to  do 
with  his  occupancy  of  the  "  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  Profes- 
sorship of  Theology  ?"  What  parallel  is  there  between  the 
case  of  Dr.  Lord  and  that  of  the  distinguished  divine  of 
Danville  ?  Where  have  I  arraigned  him  in  regard  to  his 
patriotic  services  or  stand  for  the  country?  What  peurile 
clap-trap  is  this  to  excite  popular  sympathy  in  his  behalf? 
I  have  only  spoken  of  him  as  acting  in  connection  with  the 
party  by  which  the  founders  and  original  supporters  of  the 
Seminary  Avere  proscribed  and  set  aside,  "  solely  on  polit- 
ical grounds  " — or  on  the  ground  of  being  opposed  to  tlie 
agitation  of  the  Church  and  Seminary  by  the  discussion  of 
political  questions  ;  and  arraigned  him  in  my  first  letter  on 
the  ground  only  of  alleged  personal  oiFenses  to  myself  and 
friends,  that  made  it  wholly  inconsistent  and  improper  for 
him  to  seek  and  occupy  the  Chair  bearing  my  name. 

These  "  cliarges  "  he  denied ;  and,  after  having  been 
proved,  instea4  of  acknowledging  his  errors,  as  a  Christian 
professor  should  do,  (and  as  he  had  proinised^  he'says :  "  To 
your  profuse  personal  aspersions  I  make  no  reply.  To  do 
so  would  not  become  me.  Of  the  mass  of  second-hand  pue- 
rilities you  adduce  as  their  ground,  every  one  is  either 
wholly  imtrue,  or  it  is  untrue  in  the  relation  and  aspect  in 
which  you  give  it "  !  , 


64 

Dr.  Lord  may  liope  to  turn  aside  tlie  force  of  the  testi- 
mony adduced  by  me  from  gentlemen  whose  names  I  offered 
to  give,  if  called  for,  and  every  one  of  whom,  for  intelligence 
'and  veracity,  is  his  peer — by  characterizing  their  statements 
as  "  personal  aspersions,"  "  second  hand  peurilities,"  &c.  If, 
however.  Dr.  Lord  can  afford  to  rest  under  such  disinterested 
and  responsible  testimony,  in  direct  contradiction  to  liis  un- 
sustained  and  personally  interested  assertions,  both  those 
who  make  them  and  myself  can  afford  to  bear  his  imputa- 
tions. , 

A  more  manly  and  Christian  course,  in  the  judgment  of 
impartial  men,  jealous  of  the  veracity  and  purity  of  the 
ministry,  would  have  been  for  him  to  have  demanded  an  in- 
vestigation. His  veracity  and  Christian  honor,  if  his  state- 
ments were  sustained,  might  then  be  vindicated.  Such  in- 
vestigation he  manifests  no  disposition  to  court. 

In  my  first  letter  on  this  subject,  I  said  that  the  General 
Assembly  of  1866  was  informed  that  "  a  large  minority  of 
the  Board  of  Directors  had  protested  against  the  transfer 
of  Dr.  Lord  to  the  Professorship  of  Tlieology,  on  the  ground 
that  such  transfer  would  be  far  from  satisfactory  to  the 
friends  of  the  Seminary  who  had  contributed  to  its  endow- 
ment, sustained  and  carried  forward  the  Institution  success- 
fully to  that  time,  as  well  as  to  myself"  In  that  letter  I  did 
not  desire  to  raise  the  question  of  Dr.  Lord's  unfitness  for  that 
Professorship,  further  than  was  stated. 

But  the  opposition  of  the  old  members  of  the  Board  to 
his  transfer  went  further^  viz. :  that  he  lacked  the  proper 
qualifications  for  the  position  ;  and  that  he  was  not  a  thor- 
ough Old  School  Presbyterian"  in  Theology — moi-e  Congre- 
gational in  his  training  and  sympathies  than  Presbyterian. 
These  points  were  urged  in  the  Board  of  Directors  against 
his  transfer;  and  I  thus  refer  to  them  in  connection  with  his 
repealed  challenge^  as  this :  "  Not  that  the  senior  Pro- 
fessor lias  been  remiss  in  diligence  or  fidelity  with  rcsj^ect 
to  any  one  dujty  devolved  upon  him  by  his  office  ;  not  that 
the  young  men  resorting  here  are  not  faithfully  and  thor- 
oughly instructed  in  the  whole  sum  of  Christian  truth  and 
duty  bearing  on  the  office  and  work  of  the  Gospel  ministry," 


66 

etc.;  while  /  clearly  showed,  in  my  letter  of  IGth  January, 
that  the  spirit  inculcated  in  his  previous  letter  was  ani/t/n/ifi 
else  than  such  as  is  "becoming  in  the  office  and  work  of  the 
Gospel  ministry"! 

But  Dr.  Lord's  "  financial  agent,  of  eminent  fitness  and 
excellence,"  comes  to  the  rescue  ! 

In  my  letter  of  November  17th,  immediately  after  being 
called  on  by  this  agent,  I  said :  "  And  if,  as  stated  to  me  by 
Mr.  Truax,  the  Seminary  is  now  embarrassed  for  funds, 
and  with  no  reasonable  prospect  of  obtaining  them — some 
of  the  few  subscribers  to  the  McMaster  endowment  refusing 
to  pay  because  of  the  failure  to  raise  the  $50,000  proposed 
— in  this  condition  of  things,  I  would  re-affirm  my  willing- 
ness to  co-operate  in  the  support  of  the  Seminary,  and  my 
desire  to  assist  in  placing  it  on  a  solid  financial  basis,"  etc. 
To  this  statement  the  agent  did  not  at  the  time,  and  does 
not  now  object.  What  addition  to  this  statement,  then,  is 
found  in  my  last  letter,  to  which  he  excepts  ?  I  therein  say  : 
*'  And  after  the  other  side  Imving  utterly  failed  to  obtain 
the  requisite  means  for  sustaining  the  Institution — the  'fi- 
nancial agent  of  eminent  fitness  and  excellence '  having  in- 
formed me  in  connection  with  his  application  for  help,  that 
lie  had  thoroughly  canvassed  Illinois,  Ohio,  and  Iowa,  and 
nothing  further  could  be  depended  upon  from  these  States  ; 
and  that  the  prospect  was  not  good  for  collecting  for  the 
Seminary  in  Wisconsin  or  Minnesota — after  these  things,  I 
say,  and  informed,  as  I  was  also  by  the  IVea^urer  that  there 
would  not  be  money  enough  to  get  through  the  session 
with,"  etc. 

Here  now  are  the  two  statements,  and  they  are  suhstaii- 
tially  the  same,  and  corroborated  by  the  statement  of  the 
Treasurer  as  to  the  actual  state  of  the  finances,  so  far  as  he 
<'ould  know.  In  my  reference  to  the  agent's  statement  in 
the  connection* last  used  by  me,  I  mentioned  more  particu- 
larly the  diffisrent  States,  as  referred  to  by  him.  And  the 
only  additional  remark  I  have  to  make  on  his  "  correct ioii,^'' 
is  that,  if  his  "fait/i,"'^  being  without  works,  is  not  "  dead,'' 
the  occasion. as  understood  for  my  proposed  assistance  is  not 
only  removed,  but  the  $75,000  may  be  retrirned  to  its  icith- 
6 


66 

out  inconvenience  ;  in  which  case  both  parties  may  work 
satisfactorily  in  the  future,  thougli  tee  should  liave  lost  the 
fruit  of  our  labors  and  means  in  the  past. 

Feeling  as  I  did  about  the  Seminary,  I  may,  under  the 
circumstances  explained,  have  oifered  to  "give"  more  "mo- 
ney "  than  was  called  for,  and  thus  have  excited  Dr.  Lord's 
suspicion  that  my  object  Avas  not  only  to  "  buy  sacred  right* 
and  powers,"  but  also  to  "give  money"  for  the  "Cyrus 
11.  McCormick  Chair  of  Theology."  If  so,  I  can  but  assure 
him  of  his  error.  While  his  "  dishonored  bond  "  argument 
was  one  directly  to  save  himself  from  the  "  sacrifice  "  to- 
wliicli  he  ii'ft'iri-d,  I  can  conceive  of  no  motive  personal  to 
myself  either  to  "  buy "  him  oiF,  or  "  buy  "  up^the  Semin- 
ary ;  and  if,  therefore,  (in  his  languarge)  "that  venerable 
body  can  think  it  Just,  because  of  my  (his)  cordial  agreement 
and  co-operation  with  it'*'' — to  save  him  from  this  "sacrifice,'^ 
I  shall  be  content. 

Rights  of  property  involved  are  of  course  secondary  ques- 
tions ;  but,  under  the  operations  of  wrong  done  to  one  party,, 
and  demands  both  "  legal  and  moral  "made  upon  that  ])artyy 
it  must  not  be  supposed  that  in  the  contingency  of  such 
wrong  being  perpetuated,  similar  ^'^  legal  and  moraV  claim* 
on  the  other  side  cannot  be  alluded  to.     It  is  very  modest 
to  say :  We  have  taken  the  Seminary  as  we  proposed  to  do,. 
with  the  Chair  of  Theology  just  where  it  stood  in  1866, 
when  we  threw  you  "overboard."     We  did  then  propose 
that,  whereas  you  had  to  that  time  done  nobly,  you  should 
have  full  credit  for  all  you  had  so  well  accomjjlished ;  but, 
excuse  us,  we  have  now  men  and  means  ami  will  relieve  you 
of  all  further  care  and  responsibility  in  the  premises.     You 
have  done  half  the  whole  work  of  completing  this  noble  In- 
stitution.    We  will  take  to  ourselves  "  the  Chair  of  Theol- 
ogy and  a  working  majority  of  the  Directors,"  (by  displa- 
cing those  who  had  so  well  till  then  discharged  their  duty,) 
and  will  complete  the  work,  and  will  hold  and  run  the  Insti- 
tution for  you.     You  protest  to  be  sure,but  what  of  that ;  we 
have  just  now  a  majority  in  the  Assembly,  and  can  do  the 
work  better  than  you,  while  you  have  done  your  part  of  it  I 


Soon,  however,  though  with  :x  new  and  :v[)j)i"()ve<l  coUt'ct- 
ing  agent,  we  fail  to  get  tlie  "  money  V  neeessary  for  the 
work — the  vevy^first  instahnent  towards  oicr  work — the  Mac 
Master  endowment,  "  depended  upon  "  fails — and  we  send 
our  Committee  to  you.  Ah,  if  you  please,  the  chairs  are  all 
filled  now,  and  your  fourth  instalment  would  be  acceptable. 
Dr.  Lord  thunders,  "Your  plighted  faith,"  "Your  dishon- 
ored bond,"  etc. — in  effect  :  "  I  occupy  the  Cyrus  IT.  Me 
Cormick  Chair  of  Theology,  and  want  the  bond  paid  !" 
And  of  course  the  "  old  friends,"  superseded  and  superan- 
nuated, being  just  where  the  General  Assembly  placed  them, 
should  stay  there  most  quietly!  The  idea  that  tliey  should, 
under  such  circumstances,  imagine  themselves  entitled  to 
any  share  of  what  the;/  had  themselves  provided,  and  so  •sa- 
credly given  to  their  "  neio  fkiexds,"  would  be-^"  to  say 
the  least  of  it  " — "  Simony  IP''  ' 

Respectfully, 

C.  H.  IVIcCOKMICK. 


LETTER  FROM  REV.  T.  V.  MOORE,  D.  D.    • 

Nashville,  March  5,  ]809. 

Rev.  Dr.  Lord — ^Dear  Sir:  You  Avill  pardon  me  if  I 
say  that  your  reply  of  the  3d  inst.  is  somewhat  extraordinary. 
You  have  made  in  the  Presbyter  a  statement  about  me  Avhich 
is  untrue  and  injurious,  in  that^  ^?r/or  to  the  fall  of  fort  Sum- 
ter, I  was  a  disunionist,  and  had  spoken  contemptuously  of  the 
North.  I  solemnly  aver  that  both  these  statements  are  un- 
true. When  I  call  your  attention  to  them,  you  say  tliat 
they  rested  on  statements  made  in  the  New  York  Observer, 
and  perhaps,  the  Presbyterian ;  and,  if  their  statements  were 
incorrect,  you  have  no  doubt  they  woidd  willingly  make  tjic 
due  correction.  To  this  I  reply:  1st,  That  no  such  state- 
ments were  published  in  those  papers  at. any  time ;  .for  I  saw 
them  regularly,  and  I  challenge  you  or  any  one  else  to  find 


68 

any  such  allegations  in  tliem  at  that  time.  You  have  con- 
-foundod  statements  published  during  the  war  with  that  you 
allege  to  have  been  published  previous  to  April,  1861. 

Hence,  the  statement  was  not  with  these  papers,  but  with 
you;  and  they  might  well  decline  to  correct  incorrect  state- 
ments which  they  never  made. 

2.  Were  it  possible  for  these  papers  to  make  any  such 
correction,  it  would  not  reach  the  case ;  for  your  statement 
was  made  by  the  Presbyter^  whose  readers  may  never  see 
'these  papers — and  made,  not  as  a  contingent  statement,  based 
on  the  authority  of  others,  but  on  your  own  authority,  the 
responsibility  being  thus  assumed  by  yourself. 

You  speak  of  Mr.  McCormick's  "unmanly  attack"  on  you. 
.fa  your  assault  on  me  any  more  manly?  You  have  dragged 
flay  name  before  the  public,  needlessly,  as  it  seems  to  me ; 
and,  on  a  statement,  the  responsibility  of  which  you  formally 
assume,  made  a  charge  against  me  which  is  untrue,  and  in- 
capable of  proof  by  the  witnesses  you  cite  ;  and  when  I  ask  a 
manly  reparation  of  the  wrong  you  have  done  me,  you  invite 
me  to  ask  the  news-papers  to  correct  misstatements  which 
I  know  they  never  made,  and  were  made  by  you  alone.  Is 
that  manly  ?  Is  that  bearing  true  witness  against  your  neigh- 
bor? I  know  that  a  strong  prejudice  exists  against  me  in 
the  North ;  and  it  does  so  because  there  have  been  so  many 
who,  like  you,  have  made  false  statements  about  me  which 
they  had  not  the  manliness  to  correct  when  pointed  out  to 
them.  Pardon  me  if  I  speak  plainly,  for  I  think  you  have 
acted  in  a  very  improper  manner,  and  I  feel  bound  to  say  so 
m  plain  words.  I  do  not  now  expect  any  reparation  of  the 
injury  you 'have  done  me;  but  I  feel  bound  in  Christian 
fidelity  to  say  that  you  have  done  me  this  wrong;  and  I 
hope  the  time  may  come  Avhen  God  will  lead  you  to  see  it, 
and  to  act  justly  and  fairly  to  even  a  poor,  hated  rebel,  as 
I  suppose  you  regard  me  to  be,  whose  good  name  is  of  no  sort 
of  consequence  to  you.  I  greatly  regret  the  necessity  of 
writing  these  things;  but  your  own  sensitiveness  in  regard 
to  the  statements  of  others  about  you,  will,  I  hope,  be  my 
apology. 

I  am  youTs,  etc.,  T.  V.  Moore. 

liev.    Willis  Lord,  I).  D.,   Chicago. 


69 


From  the   Presbyterian  Banner,  March  24,    1869. 
WRITTEN  BY  DR.  JUNKIN, 

Late  Pastor    of  the   North    Church,    Chicago. 

DR.  LORD  AND  MR  McCORMICK. 

Messrs.  Editors. — It  is  very  important  not  only  for  the 
interests  of  the  "  Seminary  of  the  North- West,"  but  for  the 
welfare  of  all  similar  institutions  in  our  Church  and  country, 
that  the  dispute  about  the  Seminary  in  question  be  settled, 
not  in  a  partisan  spirit,  but  in  a  spirit  of  Christian  fairness 
and  equity.  I  deplore  this  dispute  most  profoundly.  It  iB 
especially  to  be  lamented,  that  sharp  personalities  should 
have  entered  into  it ;  lor  they  always  complicate  the  real 
issues.  Nor  is  it  less  deplorable  that  a  disposition  should 
appear  in  any  quarter,  to  gather  round  the  true  issues  the 
blinding  mists  of  political  passions. 

In  what  I  propose  to  say,  I  shall  endeavor  to  deal  candid- 
ly with  the  real  issues ;  and  that,  not  with  a  view  to  do 
injury  to  either  of  the  gentlemen  named  at  the  head  of  this 
article,  but  simply  to  do  justice  to  them  and  the  cause. 
Permit  then  a  few  remarks,  and,  1.  I  am  sincerely  of  opin- 
ion that  injustice  is  done  to  Mr.  McCormick,  by  the  allega- 
tion that  he  desires  to  control  the  Seminary,  or  dictate  its 
management  in  the  interest  of  anything  beyond  tlie  legiti- 
mate objects  of  its  foundation.  I  know  that  gentleman  Avell ;. 
and  know  him  to  be  unusually  marked  by  a  spirit  of  toler- 
ance and  exemption  from  a  disposition  to  dictdte  or  controL 
In  this  estimate  I  will  be  sustained  by  all  candid  men  in 
Chicago,  who  know  the  man.  I  have  had  frequent  conver- 
sations with  him  about  the  interests  of  the  Seminary,  and  of 
the  North  Church  ;  and  can  truly  say,  that  his  freedom  from 
the  .domineering  .disposition  that  has  been  attributed  to 
him,  was  more  complete  than  I  could  conceive  to  be  possi- 
ble, in  such  a  set  of  circumstances. 


70  . 

I  know,  too,  that  in  the  treatment  of  men  in  social  life,  or 
in  business,  sacred  or  secular,  he  was  never  influenced  by 
their  dittering  from  him  in  political  opinions.  Many  of  his 
employees  and  confidential  agents  differed  with  him  in 
political  questions.  In  selecting  attorneys  and  other  pro- 
fessional agents,  I  happen  to  know  that  he  often  chose  his 
decided  political  opponents.  I  never  knew  a  man  less  dis- 
posed to  yield  to  such  prejudices. 

2.  If  our  brother  Lord  had  been  content  to  retain  the 
chair  to  which  he  was  elected,  and  for  which  Mr.  McCor- 
mick  deemed  him  qualified,  no  objection  would  ever  have 
been  raised  by  the  founder  of  the  Seminary.  It  was  the 
proposal  to  transfer  Dr.  Lord  to  a  cliair  bearing  the 
founder's  name,  by  a  process  that  violated  the  trust — to  a 
chair  for  which  he  was  not  deemed  so  competent  as  for  the 
one  to  which  he  was  elected — that  awaked  the  founder's 
apprehensions. 

3.  It  is  a  fact,  which  no  man  posted  in  the  history  of  the 
Seminary  can  question,  that  there  was  a  very  explicit  ujider- 
stariding^  in  the  General  Assembly,  at  the  time  the  Seminary 
was  located  at  Chicago,  in  regard  to  the  type  of  theology 
that  was  to  jjrevail  in  it,  and  in  regard  to  the  general  policy 
that  was  to  lie  at  its  foundation.  I  was  at  the  Assembly  in 
Indianapolis — heard  the  debates — was  cognizant  of  the  is- 
sues'' decided  by  the  vote  in  regard  to  location  (Indianapolis 
or  Chicago;)  and  know,  as  every  other  man  there  knew, 
that  the  friends  of  a  distinctive  Old  School  Theology  and  of 
the  conservative  basis  of  1845  voted  for  Chicago,  and  the 
more  2)rof/ressive  brethren  voted  for  Indianapolis.  Had  the 
latter  prevailed.  Dr.  MacMaster  would  have  been  the  Pro- 
fessor of  Theology ;  as  it  was,  Dr.  Kice  was  chosen  as  the 
exponent  of  the  objects  and  platform  of  the  Institution. 
The  General  Assembly  i^erfectly  undei*stood  this  at  the 
time!  Mr.  McCormick  so  understood  it,  and  it  was  \vith 
this  explicit  understanding  tiiat  he  made  his  munificent 
giftr^^ 

4.  Tiie  gift  was  also  made  upon  the  basis  of  the  "  plan  for 
Theological  Seminaries,"  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly, 
at    tlia    tini3  tha    first    oa'j  (Princeton)    was  established  ; 


11 

and  which  has  been  the  law  of  the  Church  ever  since.    That 
^^plan^^  prescribes  very  explicitly  the  mode  of  electing  pro- 
fessors ;  and  makes  no  provision  for  the  smuggling  process, 
by  which  a  professor  elected  to  one  chair,  is  transferred  to 
.another  by  the  manipulation  of  a  committee,  without  prayer, 
iiud  without  a  ballot.      It  was  by  this  process  Dr.   Lord . 
reached  the  chair  of  Theology ;  a  chair  to  which  in  ordinary 
times  it  is  hardly  likely  he  would  be   originally  chosen,. 
And  I  do  not  wonder  that  the  founder  of  the  Seminary 
should  feel  reluctant  to  see  the  chair  of  Theology  filled  by 
an  indirection ;  and  that  by  a  man  who  had  assumed,  with- 
out just  cause,  as  Mr.  McCormick  thouglit,  an  attitude  of: 
pereonal  hostility  to  himself.     This  reluctance  was  doubtless, 
increased  by  the  fact  that  this  transfer  was  effected,  by  its 
managers,  not  so  much  out  of  regard  to  the  peculiar  qualiti- 
cations  of  the  candidate,  but  on  the  score  of  his  "  loyalty  " 
.to  a  particular  set  of  political  opinions  ;  which,  too,  the  in- 
cumbent liad  but  recently  embraced,  in  obedience  to  the 
current  of  events. 

5,  I  was  personally  observant  at  the  time  the  manceuver- 
ing  was  in  progress,  for  effecting  this  transfer,  of  tlie  means 
resorted  to ;  and  if  the  painful  necessity  of  a  full  expose 
should  arise,  can  give  it,  backed  by  proof:  but  I  hope  such 
will  never  pi'ove  necessary.  Human  frailty  can  be  proven 
by  Scriptui'e,  without  such  a  demonstration,  as  the  secret 
Jiistory  of  this  thing  would  furnish. 

6.  The  writer  of  this  article  was  made  the  unsuspecting 
.and  unconscious  agent,  by  u  gentleman  Avhom  I  will  not 
noio  name,  of- beginning  the  process  of  revolutionizing  the 
Seminary  of  the  North- West,  as  early  as  the  Newark  As- 
sejubly  (1864),  and  has  watclied  the  progress  of  this  unwor- 
tliy  effort  ever  since,  with  sorrow  and  humiliation.  And  I 
-desire  soberly  to  ask  my  brethren  in  this  Church,  whether 
they  are  prepared  fully  to  inaugurate  the  custom  of  deter- 
mining the  theology  and  the  directorate  of  our  Seminaries 
by  considerations,  not  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  and  cause 
of  Christ,  but  pertaining  to  questions  of  national  and  State 
politics  ?  Is  this  patriotic  dodge,  this  "  loyalty  "  dodge,  by 
which  some  men  have  managed  to  mount  into  notoriety,  to 


last  for  ever?  Are  we  never  to  "have  peace?"  Are  men 
to  be  proscribed,  and  the  Church's  benefactors  denounced, 
because  they,  now  that  the  war  is  ended,  desire  Christian 
magnanimity  to  be  extended  to  our  misguided  enemies  ?  I 
was  very  sorry  to  see  my  brother  Lord,  in  liis  last  letter, 
attempt  to  make  a  point  against  Mr.  McConnick,  for  hav- 
ing carried  out  the  Saviour's  maxim — "  love  your  enemies  ** 
— and  aiming  to  prove  him  a  Southern  sympathiser — be- 
cause he  gave  ten  thousand  dollars  to  the  College  that  bears 
the  name  of  Washington  and  located  in  Mr.  McCormick's 
native  county.  If  ever  the  Southern  people  are  to  be  deliv- 
ered from  their  political  mistakes,  and  made  a  valuable  por- 
tion of  our  population,  it  will  be  by  education  :  and  is  it  a 
crime  in  jNIr.  McCormick,  to  pity  them  in  their  poverty,  and 
extend  a  helping  hand  ?  When  one  of  our  Generals  tore 
down  the  statue  of  Washington,  from  that  very  College, 
and  bore  it  oflf,  a  trophy  of  war.  General  Grant,  our  present 
woi'thy  President,  ordered  it  to  be  sent  back  and  replaced. 
Is  the  President  a  Southern  sympathiser  ? 

7.  The  phraseology,  "  The  friends  of  the  Seminary,"  is  a 
stereotype  phrase,  in  the  parliamentary  and  historical  lan- 
guage of  our  Church.  Very  often  have  we  heard  it  from 
the  lips  of  directors,  professors,  and  friends  of  Princeton, 
Alleghany,  and  other  Seminaries ;  and  its  meaning  is  well 
understood,  and  it  embodies  an  idea  that  is  right,  valuable, 
and  important.  It  means  that  every  institution  of  the  kind 
is  placed,  by  the  Church,  in  the  hands  of  persons  who  have 
taken  and  expect  to  take  a  special  interest  in  founding, 
maintaining  and  managing  it.  And  so  long  as  it  is  man- 
aged, by  these  "  friends,"  in  accordance  with  the  objects 
of  its  foundation  and  the  wishes  of  the  Church,  it  is  wise  to 
leave  it  in  the  hands  of  its  "  friends."  Princeton,  Alleghany, 
and  Danville  always  expected  and  received  from  the  Assem- 
bly "  a  working  majority  "  of  "  the  friends  of  the  Seminary  " 
— is  the  Seminary  of  the  North- West  to  be  blessed  Avith  "a 
working  majority"  of  its  foes?  This  policy  was  partially  in- 
itiated in  18G4 — boldly  attempted  in  1805 — and  is  now  un- 
blushingly  avowed,  by  certain  men,  far  from  Chicago,  who 
never  have  done  anything  towards  its  prosperity,  except  it 


19 

be  to  lead  an  unsuspecting  Assembly  to  give  to  those  who 
would  kill  it,  "  a  working  majority "  in  the  Directorate. 
Let  it  be  understood  that  tliis  policy  is  fairly  inaugurated, 
and  that  our  Seminaries  are  to  be  made  the  stakes  in  eccles- 
iastical games  of  bluff;  and  who  will  contribute  to  endow- 
meiits  hereafter?  Let-it  be  understood  that  the  munificence 
of  a  Christian  gentleman  can  be  not  only  perverted  from 
the  specific  object  for  which  he  gave  it,  but  even  used  for 
the  sustenance  of  persons  who  become  his  enemies  without 
cause — and  farewell  to  such  benefactions,  so  long  as  man  is 

lY^nn  V  SfC  I*  v  "K  V  T* 

NOUS  VERRONS. 

P.  S. — Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  received  a  Banner 
of  the  10th  inst.,  in  which,  in  noticing  the  catalogue  of  the 
Seminary,  to  which,  it  seems,  is  appended  or  pi-efixed  a  his- 
toi-ical  statement,  you  draw  the  inference  that  the  "  origi- 
nal fi-iends  of  the  Seminary"  is  a  phrase  which  signifies 
something  very  different  from  Avliat  is  intended  by  those 
who  use  it."  This  inference  is  one  very  natural  for  you  to 
draw,  with  no  information  upon  the  subject,  but  what  ap- 
pears in  the  "  history."  Hereby  hangs  a  tale.  Dr.  Lord, 
during  the  sessions  of  the  Assembly  of  1864,  approached 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries, 
(who  is  a  very  unsuspecting  man,)  and  made  such  represen- 
tations as  induced  the  Chairman,  and  tlirough  himtlie  Com- 
mittee, to  adopt  this  little  "  history  "  into  the  report  of  the 
Committee  anent  the  Seminary  of  the  Xorth-West ;  and  it 
was  adopted  and  reported,  and,  I  think,  adopted  by  the 
Assembly.  Though  brought  to  the  Chairman  by  Dr.  Lord, 
and  though  he  requested  that  it  should  be  incorporated  in 
the  Committee's  report,  it  was  not  in  his  handwriting  ;  but, 
(probably)  in  that  of  the  then  Moderator  of  the  Assembly, 
Dr.  Wood,  That  brotlier  (Dr.  W.)  subsequently  brought 
out  this  "  history  "  in  an  address  delivered  before  the  Direc- 
tors of  the  Seminary,  in  the  North  churcli,  Chicago  ;  some- 
what curiously  attributing  the  "  history  "  to  the  pastor  of 
that  church,  (Dr.  D.  X.  Junkin,)  who  had  been  the  Cliair- 
man  of  the  Committee  of  the  Assemblv  of  1864. 


74 

After  the  address  was  over,  I  heard  a  member  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  speaking  in  terms  of  severe  condemna- 
tion of  the  "  history,"  denying  its  verity,  and  intimating 
that  it  was  part  of  the  process,  then  going  forward,  of  revo- 
lutionizing the  management  of  the  Seminary.  Dr.  Junkin 
was  present,  and  said  on  the  spot,  that  he  was  not  the  author 
of  the  "  history ;"  that  Dr.  Lord  had  requested  him,  as 
Chairman  of  the  Committee,  to  incorporate  it  in  the  report 
to  the  Assembly — that  he  had  no  time  to  verify  its  state- 
ments, but  took  them  upon  Dr.  Lord's  representation.  This 
is  the  history  of  this  "  history  " — and  fairness  demands  a 
remark  or  two. 

Ist.  It  proves  that  so  early  as  18G4  a  scheme  was  set  on 
foot  to  get  the  Seminary,  which  the  General  Assembly  had, 
by  a  vote  of  251  to  82,  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  certain 
"friends"  and  put  into  the  hands  of  other  persons,  smug- 
gled back  into  the  hands  of  the  same  "  original  friends," 
with  Dr.  Joseph  Monfort  as  their  leader  !  It  was  a  scheme 
to  undo  what  the  Assembly  of  1859  had  so  emphatically 
done. 

2d.  This  "  history "  was  written  when  Mr.  McCormick 
was  in  Europe,  where  he  had  been  for  some  years,  and  at  a 
time  when  he  was  taking  no  part  in  the  aiijiirs  either  of 
Church  or  State. 

3d.  If  you  will  look  at  the  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of 
1859,  you  will  see  evidence  enough  of  this  fact,  viz. :  that 
whilst,  with  a  view  to  conciliate  all  our  people  in  the  West 
and  North- West,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the 
existence  of  two  rival  Seminaries,  the  Assembly  of  1859, 
did  take  the  bid  New  Albany  Seminary  under  its  control  ; 
the  institution  then  established  was,  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses, a  new  one.  The  Assembly  went  so  far  as  to  vacate 
the  seats  of  the  old  directors,  and  make  all  things  new.  In 
the  resolutions  on  p.  225,  the  Seminary  is  spoken  of  as  one 
"  abovt  to  be  established  by  this  General  Assembly,"  and 
the  Assembly  thanks  Mr.  McCormick  for  his  liberal  dona- 
tion, and  accepts  it  "  upon  the  terms  and  conditions  therein 
mentioned,"  N.  V. 


75 


MR.   MCCORMICK'S  ORIGINAL  PROPOSITION  TO 
THE  ASSEMBLY  OF  1859. 

New  York,  March  27,  1869. 

Messrs.  Editors — I  am  induced  to  inclose  herewith,  for 
publication  in  the  Northwestern  Presbyterian,  a  copy  of 
the  paper  presented  by  me  to  the  General  Assembly  of  1859, 
at  Indianapolis,  containing  the  terms  of  my  offer  to  that  As- 
sembly to  endow  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  N'orth- 
west,  by  the  postscript  to  an  article  I  find  in  the  last  number 
of  the  Presbyterian  JBan7ier,  over  the  assumed  name,  "A"oz<s 
Verrons.^^ 

The  ^'■history"  of  this  Seminary,  as  given  by  Dr.  Lord  to  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  of  the  Assembly  of  18G4,  lor 
publication,  had  escaped  my  attention,  and  I  send  you  this 
paper  that  the  matter  may  be  set  right. 

It  will  be  observed  from  this  paper  that  I  say  :  "Where- 
as, *  *  it  is  proposed  that  the  said  General  Assembly 
shall  take  the  charge  and  control  of  a  Tlieo.ccical  ISentinary 
proposed  to  be  established  iov  the  use  and  bei  efit  of  the  North- 
western portion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  &c. 

"  Regarding,  as  I  do,  this  proposed  enterprise  as  one  of  the 
greatest  importance,  not  only  to  the  religious,  but  also  to  the 
general  interests  of  the  country,  and  thus  being  desirous  of 
securing  for  it,"  etc.  * 

*■'•  Prov ided,  that  the  said  General  Assembly  shall  take  charge 
oi  said  Theological  Seminary,  as  aforesaid ,'  and  provided 
that  the  donation  shall  be  applied  to  the  endowment  of  said 
Seminary — $25,000 /or  each  prof essor  to  said  Seminary  ap- 
pointed  or  elected  by  said  General  Assembly" — 7wt  iransfei'- 
red  from  one  Chair  to  another. 

The  article  in  question,  says  :  "  The  Assembly  went  so 
far  as  to  vacate  the  seats  of  the  old  Directors,  and  make  all 
things  new.;;  In  the  resolutions  on  page  225  the  Seminary  is 
spoken  of  as  one  '  about  to  be  established  by  this  General 
Assembly,'  and  the  Assembly  thanks  Mr.  j^FcCormick  for 
his  liberal  donation,  and  accepts  it  '■upon  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions therein  mentioned.'' " 


76 

COPY. 

Washington,  D.  C,  May  13,  '59. 

Whereas,  At  the  approaching  meeting  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  at  Indianapolis,  Ind., 
(on  the  19th  inst,,)  it  is  proposed  that  the  said  General  As- 
sembly shall  take  the  charge  and  control  of  a  Theological 
Seminary,  proposed  to  be  established  for  the  use  and  bene- 
fit of  the  Northwestern  portion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,, 
select  a  site  for  the  location  of  the  same,  and  appoint  a  time 
for  opening  it : 

Now,  therefore,  regarding,  as  I  do,  this  proposed  enterprise 
as  of  the  greatest  importance,  not  only  to  the  religious,  but 
also  to  the  general  interests  of  the  country ;  and  thus  being 
desirous  of  securing  for  it  such  assistance  as  I  now  may  have 
the  means  and  privilege  of  doing,  I  hereby  covenant  and 
agree,  as  follows,  viz : 

Provided,  That  the  said  General  Assembly  shall  at  it& 
next  meeting  (during  this  month)  take  charge  of  said  The- 
ological Seminary  as  aforesaid,  and  locate,  or  provide  for  the 
location  of  it,  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  in 
the  State  of  Illinois,  or  at  the  most  eligible  locality  that  can 
be  had  within  one  and  a  half  miles  from  said  city  limits ; 
and  provided  that  the  donation  hereinafter  offered  shall  be 
applied  exclusively  to  the  endowment  of  professorships  in  said 
Seminary,  I  bind  myself,  my  heirs,  ere,  to  pay  to  the  Direc- 
tors or  pro})erly  authorized  agents  of  said  Seminary,  the  sura 
of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  (#100,000),  to  be  paid  on  the 
following  terms  and  conditions,  viz. :  Twenty-five  thousand 
dollars  ($25,000,)  for  each  Professor  to  said  Seminary,  ap- 
pointed or  elected  by  said  General  Assembly,  and  payable 
in  four  equal  annual  instalments,  with  six  per  cent,  interest 
until  paid — the  first  of  which  to  be  due  and  payable  one 
year  after  the  opening  of  said  Seminary,  with  the  privilege 
of  paying  the  jyrincipal at  any  time  in  advance  of  being  due, 
if  so  preferred  by  me,  or  my  heirs.  As  witness  my  hand 
the  date  first  above  written. 

(Signed,)  C.  H.  McCormick. 


11 

LETTER  FROM  DR.  MONFORT. 

Cixcix-VATi,  April  14,  1869. 
■C.  If.  Mc  Cormick,  Esq. : 

Dear  Sir — As  you  are  now  a  reader  of  the  Presbyter^  you 
have  seen  my  report  of  the  doings  of  the  Board  of  Directors 
•of  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  North- West,  at  its  late 
meeting.  You  will  have  noticed  that  J.  G.  Monfort,  S.  T. 
Wilson,  F.  T.  Brown,  J.  L.  Williams,  and  J.  C.  Grier,  were 
appointed  a  committee  to  report  next  year  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  your  endowment,  with  instructions  to  hare  a  con- 
ference with  you  on  the  subject.  This  action  was  unani- 
mous, and  several  brethren  of  the  minority  complimented 
me  for  my  remarks  in  favor  of  this  motion.  I  gave  three 
reasons:  1.  We  must  take  some  action,  so  as  not  to  waive 
our  claim  for  the  $25,000.  2.  We  ought  to  take  a  year,  so 
as  fully  to  find  out  what  we  ought  to  do.  3.  I  said  that  I 
had  good  hope  that  time  would  enable  us  to  settle  this  mat- 
ter in  a  way  satisfactory  to  all ;  and  I  explained  that  reunion 
with  the  New"  School  would  be  followed  by  an  immediate 
■change  for  the  better  between  the  North  and  the  South.  I 
•stated  a  conversation  between  Dr.  Nelson  and  myself,  in 
■which  he  expressed  views  the  same  as  you  will  find  in  his 
:  remarks  at  a  meeting  in  this  city  last  week,  of  which  he 
.gives  an  abstract  in  the  last  Presbyter.  I  gave  the  views  of 
other  leading  New  School  men,  as  agreeing  with  Dr.  Nelson. 
I  said  that  immediately  after  reunion  with  the  New  School, 
we  would  begin  to  drift  towards  reunion  with  the  South.  I 
said  I  believed  that  as  soon  as  Mr.  McCormick  began  to  see 
this,  his  feelings  would  change,  and  he  would  help  the  move- 
ment, and,  with  it,  the  difiiculties  of  the  Seminary  would 
be  removed.  These  are  the  facts  of  the  case,  whatever  you 
may  hear  to  the  contrary. 

I  greatly  desire  that  things  may,  within  a  year,  be  put  in 
such  shape  that  you  may  feel  well  to  all  the  authorities  of 
ihfi  Seminary,  and  have  that  place  in  the  esteem  of  all  to 


which  you  arc  entitled  by  your  munificent  donation.  This 
cannot  be  attained  by  giving  you  the  control  of  the  Profes- 
porships  or  "  a  working  majority  "  in  the  Board,  for  this  per- 
petuates strife  and  distrust,  and  implies  that  parties  are  to 
be  kept  up.  It  may  be  done  by  a  feeling  on  your  part,  that- 
our  alienations  in  the  whole  country  are  to  end  on  terms- 
equal  and  fraternal.  My  impression  is  that  your  objections 
to  the  management,  which  you  think  are,  to  some  extent, 
personal,  have  all  grown  out  of  public  questions,  even  those 
in  which  Dr.  Lord  is  involved,  and  that  hence,  as  soon  as- 
those  public  questions  are  in  the  Avay  of  adjustment,  your 
feelings  will  change ;  and  the  same  will  be  true  in  regard  to 
the  feelings  of  others  toward  yourself.  This  will  take  time. 
If  Horace  Greely  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher  can  conciliate^ 
surely  our  church  can.  If  our  Government  can  pacify  the 
South,  our  church  may  do  the  same. 

I  write  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  work  of  the  Com- 
mittee before  you,  and  asking  if  you  are  free  to  have  a  full 
and  fraternal  interview.  At  least  Mr.  Williams  and  myself 
will  have  an  opportunity  of  seeing  you  during  the  meeting 
of  the  Assembly,  if  you  are  willing. 

Yours  truly, 

J.  G.  MONFOKT, 

178  Elm  Street^  Cinciiinati. 


REPLY  TO  DR.  MON  FORT'S  LETTER.    . 

40,  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York, 

^jt>ri7  29?A,  1869. 

.  Rev.  J.  G.  Moxfort,  D.  D.^Dear  Sir: — I  avail  my- 
self of  the  first  opportunity  I  have  had  to  reply  to  your  let- 
ter of  the  14th  inst.,  in  which  you  say,  "J.  G.  Monfort,  S. 
T.  Wilson,  F.  T.  Brown,  J.  L.*  Williams,  and  J.  C.  Grier,. 
were  appointed  a  Committee  to  report  next  year  in  regard 


79 

to  the  mattor  of  our  cndoAvmont,  with  instructions  to  have 
a  conference  with  you  on  the  subject." 

In  reply  to  your  "  purpose  of  bringing  the  work  of  tlie 
Committee  before  you  and  asking  if  you  arc  free  to  have  a 
full  and  fraternal  interview ;"  and  to  your  remark  that 
"  at  least  Mr.  Williams  and  myself  will  have  an  opportunity 
of  seeing  you  during  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  if  you 
are  willing,"  I  have  not  the  least  objection  to  such  an  in- 
terview. 

But,  as  to  the  first  of  your  three  reasons  given  for  the 
unanimous  action  of  the  Board  of  Directors  appointing  this 
Committee,  permit  me  to  say  that  you  need  have  no  ap- 
prehension of  the  loss  of  your  "  claim^''  from  delay,  "  for 
the  825,000 ;"  and  that,  from  the  second,  I  regret  to  learn 
that  you  think  it  necessary  "to "take  a  year  fully  to  find  out 
what  we  ought  to  do."  In  relation  to  your  third  reason, 
after  what  I  have  written  on  this  subject,  I  need  hardly  say 
that  I  also  regret  that  you  should  think  any  question  of 
"  reunion  with  the  New  School,"  or  of  "  change  for  the 
better  between  the  North  and  the  South,"  should  delay, 
a  year,  justice  to  myself  and  the  party  with  whom  I  have 
acted. 

Up  to  the  point  of  your  having  failed  to  publish  in  the 
Presbyter  my  reply  to  Dr.  Lord's  second  comnmnication,  I 
have  been  gratified  at  the  fair  manner  in  which  you  treat- 
ed this  Seminary  controversy,  while  I  had  hoped  that  you 
would  be  found  ready  without  delay  to  meet  this  question 
on  its  merits ;  and  while,  perhaps,  no  one  thing  more  than 
to  do  simple  justice  in  this  case  would  favor  an  early  resto- 
ration of  fraternal  feeling  between  the  North  and  South  ; 
and  which,  thus  promptly  done,  could  not  fail  to  counter- 
act the  insults  offered  that  people  (South)  by  Dr.  Zord^s  de- 
nunciations of  them. 

•  So  far  as  my  own  "  feelings  "  are  concerned,  the  best  pos- 
sible evide7ice  "that  our  alienations  in  the  Avhole  country 
are  to  end  on  terms  equal  and  fraternal  "  might  be  furnish- 
ed by  those  who  took  from  the  original  founders  and  sup- 
porters of  the  Seminary  "  a  working  majority  in  the  Board," 
and  "  the  control   of  the  Professorships,"  in  first  restoring 


80 

what  had  thus  been  taken  from  them.  First  restore  to  every 
one  liis  rights,  then  do  no  more  wrong.  It  seems  to  me 
more  that  ''''parties  are  to  be  kept  ■up'^  when  the  parti/  hav- 
ing improperly  usurped  control  insists  that  to  ask  tlie  re- 
turn of  it  can  only  "  perpetuate  strife  and  distrust !" 

Is  it  in  the  golden  rule,  much  less  in  human  nature,  for  us  to 
*•  feel  well  towards  all  the  authorities  of  the  Seminary,"  while 
those  authorities  refuse  to  re-instate  us  in  our  rightful  posi- 
tions, from  which  they  ejected  us  without  a  shadow  of  cause  ? 
Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  -Tcan  "yce/ icc// towards"  a  man  who 
persists  in  the  ocfiupancy  of  the  "Cyrus  II.  McCormick 
Prefessorship  of  Theology,"  after  having  triumphantly  ex- 
posed the  unwarranted  means  resorted  to  by  him  in  getting 
himself  placed  there,  when  no  high-minded  man  could  have 
been  induced,  under  such  circumstances,  to  have  accepted 
the  position  ?  And  should  I  be  supposed  i>ow  to  '■''feel 
weW  towards  a  proposition  that,  in  connection  with  the  late 
action  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  and  of  IVie  Chicago  Pres- 
bytery, implies  the  perpetuation  of  the  wrong  done  by  the 
Assembly  to  my  Conservative  friends,  and  the  continuance 
of  a  man  in  the  said  Professorship  of  Theology  who,  by  his 
course  as  developed  in  his  correspondence  with  me,  has 
proved  himself  so  unworthy  of  it  ?  Never  !  And  if,  to  "  have 
that  place  in  the  esteem  of  all  to  which  you  (I)  are  entitled 
by  your  (my)  munificent  donation,"  this  is  necessary,  I  must 
remain  without  it,  much  as  that  may  be  desired. 

The  wonder  with  me  is,  when  "  Horace  Greely  and  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  can  conciliate  "  the  political  differences  of  the 
country,  how  such  extreme  Church  factions  could,  in  the 
year  '09,  be  found  to  rule  the  action  in  the  Seminary  meet- 
ing of  Directors,  and  in  the  Chicago  Presbytery,  as  was 
done ! 

Duly  appreciating  your  expressed  disposition  to  conciliate 
the  South,  and  trusting  that  you,  sir,  will  in  due  time  feel 
the  propriety  in  this  Seminary  matter  of  being  '^'■just  before 
being  generous.'''* 

I  am,  yours  truly, 

C.  H.  McCOKMICK. 


81 


Editorial  From  The  North  Western  Presbyterian  ^ 
May  8th,  1869. 

THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  OF  THE 
NORTH  WEST. 

A  Plain  Statement. 

The  controversy  in  which  this  institution  has  been  invol- 
ved is  universally  dejjlored.  A  most  important  interest  of 
the  church  has  thereby  been  greatly  embarrassed  and  re- 
tarded in  its  growth  and  usefulness.  Its  futiire  existence  is 
even  believed  to  be  seriously  endangered.  Brethren  who 
before  had  harmoniously  co-oi^erated  in  its  support,  have 
been  divided  and  alienated.  Many  who  were  its  warm 
friends  and  liberal  supporters  have  become  estranged  from 
it.  The  church  and  tlie  cause  of  religion  have  been  scandal- 
ized. In  every  aspect  this  controversy  is  sad  and  painful  in 
the  extreme.  To  no  one  has  it  been  more  embarrassing 
than  to  us  who  are  called  to  conduct  a  church  journal  in  the 
field  of  its  existence.  We  have  desired  to  give  to  this  insti- 
tution a  most  earnest  and'  cordial  support.  Not  to  be  able 
to  do  this  from  any  cause  has  been  to  us  embarrassing  and 
painful  beyond  expx'ession. 

For  prudential  reasons  we  have  declined  to  take  part, 
editorially,  in  the  controversy  which  has  been  pending  be- 
tween the  liberal  founder  of  the  Seminary  and  one  of  its 
Professors,  or  to  express  any  opinion  editorially  in  reference 
to  it.  With  the  general  controversy  touching  the  manage- 
ment and  control  of  the  Seminary,  we  as  journalists,  and 
the  church  at  large,  have  the  deepest  interest.  What  this 
Seminary  is  and  continues  to  be,  our  church  in  the  Noi'th- 
west  must  soon  become.  Its  injury  or  failure  would  be  an 
untold  calamity. 
6 


82 

The  questions  which  enter  into  the  controversy  in  which 
this  institution  is  now  involved,  lie  deeper  and  run  farther 
back  than  the  differences  which  have  arisen  between  Dr. 
Lord  and  Mr.  McCormick.  As  was  stated  in  a  very  calm 
and  judicious  article  by  one  thoroughly  posted  in  seminary 
matters  in  the  West,  in  our  issue  of  the  24th  ult.,  over  the 
signature  of  "Presbyter,"  "  the  origin  of  the  present  diffi- 
culty lies  back  twenty  years  and  east  of  Chicago.  It  had  a 
.connection  with  New  Albany  soon  after  the  death  of  the 
venerable  Dr.  Matthews.  It  may  be  traced  as  far  back 
as  the  nttemptod  removal  of  Ilanovor  College  about 
1844," 

As  was  before  stated  by  us,  for  twenty  years  our  church 
in  the  West  has  been  torn  and  distracted  by  controversies 
with  respect  to  the  founding,  management  and  control  of 
Theological  Seminaries.  AVith  these  former  controversies 
the  present  writer  had  no  connection.  Of  them  he  has  no 
particular  knowledge.  With  respect  to  them  he  wishes  to 
express  no  opinion.  They  occurred  before  he  was  called  to 
the  West.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to  know 
that  they  existed — that  they  have  been  evil  and  almost  only 
evil,  resulting  in  the  death  of  the  Seminary  at  New  Albany, 
in  greatly  crippling  the  one  at  Danville,  in  the  entire  failure 
of  the  attempt  to  found  the  Tlieological  Seminary  of  the 
Northwest  under  Synodical  control,  and  now  threatens  this 
same  institution  under  the  control  of  the  Assembly  with 
similar  embarrassments  and  disasters.  Whether  these  con- 
troversies have  been  the  result  of  serious  differences  as  to 
important  ecclesiastical  or  doctrinal  questions,  of  personal 
ambition  and  conflicts,  or  of  mere  party  strife,  is  not  for  us 
to  determine.  They  existed.  Their  influence  was  most  un- 
happy. If  possible  they  should  have  been  avoided.  By  no 
means  should  they  be  perpetuated. 

The  inquiry  Avhich  we  projiosed,  some  time  since,  in  con- 
nection with  this  subject,  in  due  time  to  raise  was — Is  there 
no  generally  recognized  principle,  by  which  the  Theological 
Seminaries  of  our  church,  under  the  control  of  the  Assem- 
bly, may  be  or  arc  managed  in  a  manner  alike  fair  and  just 
to  all,  and  by  adherence  to  which,  on  the  part  of  the  Assem- 


^  83 

bly,  these  conflicts  may  be  prevented,  and  those  who  era- 
bark  in  building  up  such  institutions  may  be  allowed  to  go 
on  and  do  all  the  good  they  can  unmolested  by  those  who 
may  be  unwilling  to  co-operate  with  them. 

We  then  said,  in  view  of  these  long  protracted  contro- 
versies : 

It  is  time  to  inquire  earnestly  whether  there  is  not  some 
true  and  just  principle  upon  which  our  theological  semina- 
ries can  be  established  and  managed,  so  as  to  avoid  such 
conflicts.  One  set  of  brethi-en  band  together  with  a  sincere 
desire  to  advance  the  kingdom  of  God,  by  rearing  an  insti- 
tution for  the  training  of  an  able  and  godly  ministry.  An- 
other set  of  brethren,  distrusting  the  purity  of  their  motives, 
and  suspecting  them  of  being  actuated  by  an  ambitious 
intent  of  lording  it  over  God's  heritage,  think  they  will  be 
doing  God  service  by  frustrating  all  their  endeavors.  A 
conflict  ensues,  and  a  great  work,  honestly  begun,  and  with 
the  ordinary  amount  of  good  intentions  common  to  imper- 
fectly sanctified  men,  is  retarded  or  wholly  tliAvaited.  Now, 
the  inquiry  we  propose  to  raise  is,  is  there  no  way  to  prevent 
such  collisions,  and  to  allow  each  set  of  brethren  to  go  for- 
ward and  do  all  the  good  they  can,  Avithout  let  or  hindrance 
from  their  unconfiding  brethren. 

This  is  the  inquiiy  we  now  pi*opose  to  prosecute  in  the  in- 
terests of  peace.  In  order  to  secure  this  most  desirable 
result,  some  principle,  at  once  fair,  equitable  and  just,  must 
be  adopted  and  enforced.  Or  if  adopted  and  enforced  in 
certain  cases  with  the  best  results,  it  should  be  alike  applied 
to  all  the  seminaries  of  the  church. 

The  whole  church  is  interested  alike  in  the  settlement  of 
the  present  controversy  as  to  the  seminary  of  the  North- 
west on  ti'ue  and  just  principles.  For  if  wrong  is  allowed 
as  to  the  management  and  control  of  one  seminary,  the  party 
perpetrating  it  will  thereby  be  only  strengthened  and  em- 
boldened, and  soon  the  same  wi'ong  may  be  repeated  in 
regard  to  the  others. 

What  principle  then  is  there,  by  the  adoption  and  enforce- 
ment of  which  on  the  part  of  the  Assembly,  the  manage- 
ment and  control  of  the  seminaries  may  be  so  arranged  aH 


84 

to  secure  these  results  ?  We  answer,  these  results  may  be 
secured  by  the  Assemhbj  leaving  the  management  and  con- 
trol of  these  institutions  in  the  hands  of  tJieir  friends.  Their 
friends  are  their  supporters. 

The  limitations  to  this  control  are  lo  be  found  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  seminary  and  the  government  of  the  church. 
So  long  as  they  are  conducted  in  accoi'dance  with  their  con- 
Htitution,  their  management  can  safely  be  left  in  the  hands 
of  their  friends  or  supporters. 

This  principle  is  recogni/.ed  and  acted  on  by  Presbyteries 
in  the  government  of  individual  churches,  and  has  been  the 
principle  upon  which  the  General  Assembly  has  always  ac- 
ted, in  the  management  of  the  other  seminaries. 

For  example,  wlien  any  sufficient  number  of  persons  band 
together  for  the  purpose  of  seeking  a  church  organization 
and  the  support  of  the  stated  ministry,  and  apply  to  a 
Presbytery  to  be  organized,  all  that  the  Presbytery  requires 
upon  tlie  part  of  the  private  members  in  such  cases,  is  a 
credible  profession  of  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  on  the  part 
of  the  pastor,  ruling  elders  and  deacons  whom  they  elect, 
adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Form  of  Government, 
Book  of  Discipline,  and  Directory  for  Worship  contained  in 
our  Standards.  The  management  of  the  church,  within  the 
prescribed  limits  of  the  constitution,  the  Presbytery  leaves 
in  the  hands  of  its  membei's  and  supporters.  It  never  in- 
terferes except  in  case  of  irregularities  of  administration. 
So  long  as  the  church  is  conducted  in  a  regular  manner  as 
to  doctrine,  government,  discipline  and  worship,  the  Pres- 
bytery neither  interferes  itself,  nor  alloAvs  any  other  church 
or  individual  to  interfere  in  its  management.  The  result  is 
peace,  harmony  and  efficiency. 

So  also  when  any  number  of  ministers,  ruling  elders,  and 
members,  are  impelled  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  advan- 
cement of  his  kingdom,  to  associate  together  to  build  up  a 
Theological  Seminary,  to  train  candidates  for  the  gospel 
ministry  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  in  the 
doctrines,  order,  and  worship  summarily  set  forth  in  the  stan- 
dards of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  to  cultivate  in  them, 
by  all  the  means  which  God  has  appointed  in  his  word,  the 


85 

life  of  true  godliness,  and  thus  aim  to  raise  up  a  succession 
of  able,  faithful  and  godly  ministers  of  the  divine. word ; 
they  go  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  ask  that  venerable 
body  to  organize  such  an  institution,  and  proffer  to  the  As- 
sembly the  means  for  its  support.  The  General  Assembly 
at  once  accepts  their  offer  and  grants  their  request,  and  elects 
directors  and  professors,  and  directs  them  to  organize  under 
a  specified  constitution,  the  solemn  adoption  of  which  is  re- 
quired of  each  person  accepting  office  in  the  same.  The 
Seminary  is  constituted  for  cerain  specified  ends.  These 
ends  are  expressly  stated  in  the  constitution.  Officers  arc 
chosen  for  the  performance  of  certain  well-defined  duties. 
These  ends  being  secured,  the  Assembly  leaves  the  manage- 
ment of  that  institution  in  the  hands  of  its  friends.  S(J  long 
as  the  ends  of  its  institution  are  faithfully  secured,  the  Ass- 
embly neither  interferes  in  its  management,  nor  allows  any 
one  else  to  interfere,  to  distract  or  hinder  the  good  work. 
This  principle  being  adhered  to,  the  institution  has  peace, 
stability,  efficiency.  There  is  encouragement  under  such 
circumstances  to  contribute  to  its  support  and  establishment. 
Those  who  thus  contribute  will  have  a  voice  in  its  manage- 
ment. The  funds  thus  set  apart  they  have  every  assurance 
will  be  neither  wasted  nor  perverted.  To  leave  the  man- 
agement of  the  institution  thus  in  the  hands  of  its  supj^ort- 
ers  is  reasonable  and  just.  The  extent  of  their  control  is 
bounded  by  the  government  of  the  church  and  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Seminary.  Deny  this  principle  and  confidence 
is  shaken,  the  benevolence  of  the  church  restrained,  and.  all 
hands  engaged  in  the  church's  work  paralyzed.  Xow  this, 
is  the  principle  upon  which  the  General  Assembly  has  acted 
in  regard  to  the  Seminaries  at  Princeton,  Alleghany  and 
Danville.  On  this  principle  the  General  Assembly  at  In- 
dianapolis, in  1859,  accepted  the  proffered  endowment  for 
the  Seminary  of  the  Xorth-West,  and  elected  its  Directoj"8 
and  Faculty  at  that  time.  This  very  principle  was  dis- 
tinctly announced,  and  luiiversally  accepted  by  all  concerned 
at  tliat  time,  and  that  too,  by  a  representative  man  of  the 
same  party,  who  are  now  tramplijig  it  in  the  dust. "  In  a  let- 
ter published  in  the  Preshjtericm  Expositor^  in  April,  185JD, 


86 

by  Dr.  John  M.  Lowry,  then  pastor  of  the  cliurcli  at  Fort 
Wayne,  Intl.,  alter  stating,  1.  That  we  are  now  agreed  to 
the  Assenibly's  control  ;  2.  That  it  should  not  be  sec- 
tional ;.  3.  That  the  enterprise  is  important  and  action 
should  be  prompt  and  wise,  lie  expressly  says  :  "  It  is  iioio 
the  j^oUcy  of  the  church  to  place  the  control  of  these  institu- 
tions virtitaVu  in  the  hands  of  their  friends^  (See  Mrpos- 
itor,  Yol  ^,  p.  196.)  The  word  virtually  was  italicised  by 
ifaim. 

This  .was  the  principle  upon  which  they  then  projjosed 
that  ;the  seminary  to  be  placed  under  the  control  of  the 
Assembly  should  be  managed.  Its  control  was  to  be  vir- 
tually in  the  hands  of  its  friends.  This  announcement  M'as 
*iade  at  the  very  time  it  was  proposed  to  transfer  it  to  the 
Oeneral  Assembly.  And  on  this  principle  the  seminary 
was  :oro;anized.  On  this  principle  it  was  conducted  with 
j)eace  and  efficiency  until  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  at 
Pittsburgh,  in  1865.  Then  it  was,  when  Dr.  J.  G,  Monfort 
was  made  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Seminaries,  that 
the  first  qpen  and  avowed  attempt  was  made  to  wrest  its 
:inanagement  out  of  the  hands  of  its  founders  and  friends, 
and  ^place  it  in  the  hands  of  those  in  whose  hands  the  New 
Albany  ?fcminary  had  died,  and  the  Seminary  for  the  North- 
west, un9  or  Synodical  control  had  utterly  failed.  In  the 
•hands  lO'f  its  founders  and  friends  it  had  been  wisely  and 
succcFsTully  managed.  No  one  ever  heard  any  charge 
of  maladministration  brought  against  them.  No  one  has 
^pretended  to  allege  that  while  the  management  was  left  in 
their  hauds^  it  was  not  the  aim  of  the  Directors  to  have  the 
.Students  faithfully  trained  in  the  doctrines,  order  and  wor- 
ship of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  to  have  fostered  in 
them  a  life  of  true  godliness.  It  is  equally  well  known  that 
it  was  their  constant  endeavor  to  do  all  in  their  power  to 
make  the  institution  in  all  respects  acceptable  to  the  region 
of  the  cluircli  whose  interests  it  was  sj)ecially  designed  to 
j)romote.  They  invited  the  co-operation  of  all  their  brethren. 
They  aimed  to  give  each  Synod  in  the  Northwest  a  fair 
.representation  in  the  Dirtctory.  And  while  in  their  hands, 
at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors  in  the 


87 

spring  of  1866,  when  the  new  friends  first  made  their  appear 
anee  in  the  Board,  the  Treasurer  reported : 

1.  An  endowment  of $100,000.00 

2.  Twenty-five  acres  of  land  secured  by  them 

within   the    city   limits,   then   valued    at 

|i50,000,  now  valued  at  $220,000     -         -  220,000,00 

3.  Seminary  building  erected  and  paid  for  by 

them 25,000.00 

4.  Furniture  and  improvements  of  grounds  -  10,000.00 

5.  Library 7,000.00 

6.  ScholarshiI)s 10,000.00 

7.  Lot  and  lands 3,600.00 

8.  Bequest 10,000.00 

9.  Notes  in  hands  of  agents      ....  10,908.15 


$396,508.15 

In  addition  to  the  above,  during  the  same  period,  there 
had  been  disbursed  in  running  the  Seminary  for  salaries  of 
professors,  agents,  and  contingent  fund,  $77,154.38, 

The  debts  of  Synodical  Seminary  had  also  been  paid,  and 
the  institution  was  free  of  debt. 

Xow  of  what  do  the  friends  and  founders  of  this  institu- 
tion complain  ?  They  complain  that  a  party  in  the  church 
in  the  West,  in  whose  hands  the  Seminary  at  New  Albany 
had  died,  in  whose  hands  the  proposed  Synodical  Seminary 
of  tlic  North- West  had  most  signally  failed;  a  parly  wlio 
expressly  agreed  to  transfer  the  Seminary  to  the  control  of 
the  Assembly,  with  the  avowal  of  the  principle,  that  it  was 
the  policy  of  the  church  to  leave  the  control  of  these  institu- 
tions in  the  hands  of  their  friends,  and  who  voted  against 
its  location  at  Chicago  in  the  Assembly,  and  in  favor  of  In- 
dianapolis ;  and^who,  after  the  Seminary  had  been  located 
and  orgaiiized  at  Chicago  by  an  overichebning  vote  of  the 
church  at  large,  and  by  a  large  majority  of  the  votes  of  the 
Northwest  represented  in  the  Assembly,  refused  to  co-operate 
in  building  it  up  ;  not  only  so,  but  when  the  Synod  of 
Cincinnati,  in  whose  bounds  this  party  has  its  head,  had  ex- 
pressly declared  that  it  sustained  ho  other  relation  to  this 


88 

Seminary  than  to  all  the  other  Seminaries  of  the  church  / 
tliat  such  a  party,  at  a  time  of  great  excitement  in  the 
church  and  country,  without  due  information  being  given 
to  the  Assembly  of  their  relations  to  the  institution  or  their 
designs  in  regard  to  it,  and  by  imputatioas  upon  the  views 
of  those  in  charge  of  it  in  relation  to  the  great  questions 
npon  which  the  country  was  so  deeply  agitated,  which  were 
at  once  as  false  as  they  were  offensive — should  be  allowed 
to  displace  from  their  positions  of  trust  and  responsibility 
those  whom  they  themselves  acknowledged  had  done  nobly 
for  the  same,  and  usurp  for  themselves  the  control  and  man- 
agement of  the  institution  and  its  funds ;  this  is  the  matter 
of  which  they  complain.  It  is  a  proceeding  so  unjust  and  so 
out  of  character,  that  it  is  to  them  a  subject  of  amazement 
that  any  man  or  set  of  men  could  be  found,  professing  the 
Christian  name,  who  could  persuade  themselves  to  do  it, 
much  less  obtain  the  high  and  sacred  sanction  of  the  (Gen- 
eral Assembly  to  so  unjust  a  transaction. 

Then  what  has  this  party  accomplished  for  the  Seminary 
since  the  spring  of  1866,  when  they  entered  the  Board?  To 
say  nothing  of  the  controversy  in  which  the  institution  has 
been  involved,  the  alienations  produced,  and  the  injury  to 
the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  churches  of  the  Northwest, 
which  have  been  occasioned,  what,  have  they  done  for  the 
institution,  financially,  since  their  advent  to  the  Board? 
The  land,  buildings,  library,  furniture,  etc.,  are  just  the  same 
as  in  1 866.  In  1 866,  the  Treasurer  reported  the  cash  assets  of 
the  Seminary  to  be  $91 ,350.  In  1 869,  the  Treasurer  rei)ortcd 
the  cash  assets  to  be  192,718,  Avhich  shows  an  actual  increase, 
in  three  years  in  cash  assets  of  just  $1,368.  The  same  re- 
ports, when  carefully  compared,  also  show  an  increase  of 
unsecured  notes  of  only  $29,517.77,  against  which  an  actual 
debt  has  been  incurred  in  the  same  time  of  $7,486.13.  Thus 
it  appears  that  the  party  in  whose  hands  the  New  Albany 
Seminary  went  down,  who  utterly  failed  in  the  matter  of  a 
Synodical  Seminary  for  the  Northwest,  a\  ho  voted  against 
the  Seminary  being  located  at  Chicago,  threw  their  influ- 
ence against  it  in  their  Synods  after  its  organization,  who  con- 
tribuK.ed_^nothing  to  it,  and  who  usurped  its  control  by  the 


89 

suppression  of  its  real  designs,  and  by  false  imputations  upon 
their  brethren ;  have  failed  to  fulfil  their  promises  as  to  the 
aid  they  proffered,  and  have  added  in  three  years  of  unpar- 
alleled abundance  of  money  and  liberality  toward  other  in- 
stitutions, only  the  paltry  sum  of  $1,868  to  the  cash  assets 
of  the  institution. 

The  controversy  which  has  arisen  between  Dr.  Lord  and 
Mr.  McCormick  is  a  mere  incident  in  the  general  conspiracy 
to  usurp  the  control  of  the  institution.  Dr.  Lord  was  elect- 
ed to  a  subordinate  position  in  the  faculty  of  the  Seminary 
in  the  outset,  as  one  who  was  in  harmony  with  the  friends 
of  the  institution  in  whose  hands  it  was  placed  by  the  As- 
sembly. No  note  of  discontent  was  ever  heard  from  him 
until  after  Dr.  Rice  was  called  to  New  York.  He  then 
aspired  to  succeed  him  in  the  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  chair  of 
theology,  and  in  the  pastorate  of  the  North  Church.  The 
North  Church  declined  to  call  him,  1st,  because  they  did  not 
want  a  professor ;  2d,  because  many  of  the  most  intelligent 
among  them  did  not  like  his  preaching.  The  executive 
committee  of  the  Board  of  Directors  regarded  Dr.  Scott  as 
the  better  qualified  to  teach  Theology,  and  requested  him 
to  take  charge  of  that  department  of  the  institution.  At 
these  two  things  Dr.  Lord  took  oiFense,  and,  turning  against 
his  old  friends,  joined  hands  with  the  party  who  Avere 
opposed  to  the  Seminary,  and  with  them  has  labored  ever 
since  to  revolutionize  its  management,  and  to  secure  his 
own  advancement.  This  is  the  plain  English  of  this  side 
issue  between  him  and  the  old  founders  of  the  institution. 

Mr.  McCormick,  on  the  other  hand,  has  been  remarkably 
reticent  in  regard  to  the  Seminary  from  its  organization. 
Notwithstanding  his  munificent  gift,  and  his  known  disposi- 
tion to  do  even  more  for  it,  yet  he  has  never  been  known  to 
dictate  eitlier  as  to  the  professors  or  directors.  Under  all 
the  discourtesy  which  has  been  shown  him,  he  has  remained 
silent  up  to  the  time  when  the  demand  was  made  upon  liini 
for  the  payment  of  his  last  instalment  of  $100,000.  The 
treatment  he  has  received  is  the  most  damaging  blow  to  the 
cause  of  enlarged  benevolence,  which  has  ever  been  given  in 
the  history  of  our  church. 


90 

Dr.  Lord's  connection  with  this  Seminary  is  likely  to  prove 
a  parallel  to  that  of  Dr.  Beecher's  with  Lane  Seminary 
at  Cincinnati.  Dr.  Beecher  came  from  the  Congregational 
church  and  was  received  in  the  outset  by  the  Presbyterians 
with  the  utmost  confidence  and  cordiality.  Gradually  he 
formed  a  party  and  worked  out  of  the  Board  Old  School 
men,  and  worked  in  his  New  School  friends.  When  the 
division  came  in  '37,  he  had  a  majority  in  the  Board,  and 
carried  the  Seminary  with  him  to  the  New  School,  though 
the  funds  for  it  had  been  given  by  the  Old  School.  A  simi- 
lar course  has  been  pursued  in  connection  with  the  Seminary 
of  the  Northwest.  What  the  ultimate  result  of  the  tactics 
here  employed  shall  be,  the  future  will  disclose. 

The  two  questions  which  now  remain  to  be  answered  are, 
1st,  Will  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
when  fully  informed  of  this  whole  matter,  sanction  such  a 
proceeding;  or  2d,  Will  the  Assembly  adhere  to  the  fair 
and  just  principle  openly  announced  at  the  time  this  pro- 
posed Seminary  for  the  Northwest  was  transferred  to  its 
control,  and  restore  its  management  to  the  hands  of  its 
friends  and  chief  supporters  ? 


It  gives  me  pleasure,  at  the  request  of  Dr.  Monfort,  to 
print  for  this  pamphlet  the  following  (second)  letter,  just 
received  from  him.  He  says  "  they  contain  a  fair  expres- 
sion" oi  his  vieios,  "and  the  second  is  as  important  to  me 
(him)  as  the  first." 

C.  II.  :McC. 

Ci.vcixxATi,  J/rty  5,  1869. 
C.  IT.  Mc  Cormick,  Esq.  : 

Dbab  Sir — I  have  not  a  copy  of  the  letter  I  wrote  you, 
to  which  I  have  to-day  received  your  reply,  but  I  may  say 
that  I  had  no  intention  of  discussing  the  merits  of  the  ques- 
tion between  you  and  the  Seminary.  I  only  wished  to  ap- 
prise you  of  the  appointment  of  the  Committee,  and  to  ask 


91 

fill  interview  for  as  many  of  the  Committee  as  may  be  in 
New  York  during  the  Assembly,  To  this  you. have  as- 
sented, and  I  will  only  add :  that  in  giving  you  the  reasons 
which  were  presented  to  the  Board  in  favor  of  the  action 
taken,  I  desired  you  to  know  what  was  said,  by  Avay  of  dis- 
abusing your  mind,  from  any  misunderstanding  that  might 
arise  from  certain  things  which  have  been  published,  not 
fairly  stating  the  case. 

1.  It  was  proper  to  take  some  action  as  the  question  was 
before  the  Board  by  the  report  of  the  Committee  which 
called  forth  your  letter, 

2.  We  could  not  act  at  once,  and  delay  of  a  year  looked 
like  acting  with  proper  deliberation, 

3.  There  was  hope  in  delay,  that  the  state  of  the  Church, 
including  relations  to  the  Church  South,  might  faror  an 
adjustment  of  onr  difficulties. 

As  to  the  danger  of  losing  your  last  installment,  I  am 
not  concerned  on  that  subject,  I  do  not  expect  you  to  pay 
it  until  you  feel  that  you  ought  to  do  so,  and  if  you  never 
pay  it,  I  shall  never  charge  you  with  dishonesty,  I  shall 
as  heretofore  treat  the  matter  as  a  difference  of  opinion. 

I  am  surprised  that  you  ai*e  not  quite  satisfied  with  the 
course  of  the  Presbyter  in  your  last  controversy.  We  pub- 
lished two  letters  from  you  and  two  from  Dr.  Lord,  from 
you  first  and  from  Dr.  Lord  last ;  and  we  published  one 
from  Mr.  Williams  and  one  from  you,  from  Mr.  W.  first 
and  you  last.  Have  you  thought  how  other  papers  did  in 
the  case  ?  And  what  they  said  as  compared  with  the 
Presbyter  ?  I  have  never  impeached  you  or  your  motives. 
I  have  only  stated  your  views  as  you  have  given  them  and 
then  have  stated  mine.  I  feel  that  you  ought  to  appreciate 
this,  tliough  we  have  differed  widely  and  still  differ.  Your 
good  02)inion  of  my  fairness,  I  should  highly  prize,  while 
your  approbation  of  my  principles  on  certain  questions  I 
do  not  expect;  and  yet  I  hope  that  even  our  diverse  views 
may  yet  be  harmonized. 

Yours,  truly, 

J.  G.  MONFORT. 


92 

ADDRESS, 

Prepared  bij Mr.  C.  II.  Mc  Cormick^  at  St.Loui.%  to  be  delivered 
to  the  General  Asseinbl>/,  then  in  session,  in  1866,  and 
placed  in  the  hands  of  Henry  Day,  JEsq.,  {ofN^eio  York^ 
Elder  of  Dr.  liice,)  to  be  presented  to  the  Assembly,  but 
loho  failed  to  get  a  suitable  opportunity  to  do  so.  It 
would  have  been  introduced  at  the  commencement  of 
this  correspondence,  but  was  not  then  found : 

To  the  Moderator  of  the  General  Assembly  of  tlie  Presby- 
terian Church,  St.  Louis : 

In  view  of  the  course  proposed  to  be  taken  in  this  Assem- 
bly, in  relation  to  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  North- 
West,  I  had  intended  to  explain  to  your  Committee  on 
Seminaries,  prior  to  its  final  action,  the  views  of  the  friends 
and  supporters  of  this  Seminary  as  to  the  said  ])roposed 
course  of  action,  but  was  deprived  of  the  0})j)ortunity  to  do 
so  by  the  assurances  of  ad  active  member  of  the  Assembly 
that  no  immediate  action  on  the  subject  would  be  taken  by 
the  Committee ;  that  there  would  be  ample  time,  and  that, 
from  the  conversation  between  him  and  myself,  which  he 
seemed  properly  lo  appreciate,  he  thought  it  better  not  to 
send  a  i)aper  to  the  Committee  until  sonietliing  furtiier  coxdd 
be  ascertained,  which  he  promised  to  do,  and  to  report  to 
me.  Next  day,  however,  the  Committee  made  its  report  to 
the  Assembly. 

It  is  witli  much  reluctance,  Mr.  Moderator,  that  I  can  con- 
sent to  trespass  upon  the  indulgence  of  the  Assembly,  in 
consuming  a  moment  of  its  time.  Nothing  but  a  sense  of 
duty  impels  me  to  it,  with  a  desire  tliat  my  own  i)ositionand 
that  of  the  friends  of  this  Seminary  may  be  known  to  tlie 
Assembly,  and  that  whatever  shall  be  done  by  the  Assem- 
bly in  the  matter  shall  be  with  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  in 
the  case — that  the  responsibility  may  then  rest  wliere  it 
properly  belongs. 

Now,  sir,  as  it  has  been  opeidy  avowed  (for  a  suj»posed 
good  ])urpose)  by  the  member  of  this  body  referred  to,  a 
Director  in  the  Seminary,  (Mr.  Jesse  L.  Williams,)  that  the 


93 

changes  proposed  to  be  made  in  the  Board  of  Directors  of 
the  Seminary,  as  well  as  the  election  of  a  Professor  to  the 
Cyrus  H.  McCormick  Professorship  of  Didactic  and  Polemic 
Theology,  are  to  be  made  on  political  or  party  grounds,  and 
from  party  considerations ;  as  you,  sir,  in  the  presence  of 
this  Assembly,  have  kindly  and  in  flattering  terms,  though 
in  a  different  connection,  referred  to  my  political  position 
before  the  country,  you  -will  allow  me  one  word  for  myself 
and  friends  in  that  connection.  My  political  principles, 
while  not  in  harmony  with  the  majority  on  this  floor,  are  now 
the  same  as  when  I  proposed  to  endow  the  Professorships ; 
the  same  as  when,  in  1864, 1  was  in  nomination  for  Congress 
— when,  yielding  to  no  one  as  a  Union  man,  I  was  alike  op- 
posed to  connecting  politics  with  religion,  as  with  the  social 
or  business  relations  of  life ; — but,  while  myself  believing 
Democratic  princij^les  in  the  government  of  the  country  as 
essential  as  ever  to  its  prosperity — and  even,  if  you  please, 
that  the  old  Democratic  and  Presbyterian  "  hoops  "  that 
were  broken  must  be  reunited  before  we  can  have  a  perfectly 
restored  and  reunited  country  and  church,  I  can  see  no 
justification  whatever  for  the  proscription  now  proposed  in 
the  management  of  the  Seminary.  Heretofore  no  such  tests 
have  been  applied  or  thought  of;  while  now,  in  the  language 
of  Mr.  Jesse  L.  Williams,  in  the  conversation  referred  to, 
with  about  three-fourths  of  the  whole  number  of  Directors 
Republican,  further  changes  are  to  be  made,  for  "  a  good 
working  majority !" 

I  approached  Mr.  Williams  as  the  leading  opposition 
member  who,  at  the  last  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors 
of  the  Seminary,  proposed  and  carried  by  a  majority  of  1 1 
to  9  a  motion  to  transfer  Dr.  Lord  to  the  Chair  of  Theology, 
and  to  elect  a  fourth  Professor.  I  dcsii-ed  to  know 
of  him  the  reason  for  desiring  a  man  in  the  Chair  of  Theol- 
ogy of  known  hostility  to  myself  and  friends — the  only 
Chair  of  the  four  endowed  by  me  that  bore  my  name — and 
while  v:e  had,  to  the  present  time,  not  only  endowed  the 
Professorships,  but  procured  nearly  all  the  property  and 
funds  in  and  for  the  Seminary  ?  This  he  admitted,  and  ad- 
ded that  the  object  of  himself  ^nd  friends  was,  by  placing 


04 

their  man  in  the  Chair  of  Theology,  to  so  interest  their 
friends  generally,  who  had  heretofore  sto0d  aloof  and  done 
next  to  7iothing,  that  they  would  now  come  forward  and 
take  the  responsibility  of  providing  the  requisite  funds  for 
the  completion  of  the  buildings  undertaken^  supplementing 
the  endowment  of  Professorships,  <fec.,  which  would  require 
in  the  aggregate  at  least  |300,000.  While  avc  had  done  our 
part  well,  they  had,  he  said,  ample  mtans  for  accomplish- 
ing the  work,  and  should  now  do  their  jjart ;  and  to  that 
end  they  thought  it  best  to  have  "  a  good  working  major- 
ity of  Directors-"  I  replied  that  I  supposed  there  must  be 
some  such  money  calculation,  as  they  could  hardly,  by  such 
a  course,  expect  from  me  the  unpaid  instalment  for  that 
Chair.  I  also  stated  that  I  understood  from  one  of  Dr.  Rice's 
friends  that,  if  he  (Rice)  were  wanted  in  that  Chair  again, 
further  funds  could  be  raised  among  his  friends  in  XeAV 
York  to  increase  the  endowment  of  it  for  him,  which  Avould 
be  a  permanent  help  to  the  Seminary,  I  further  enquired 
of  Mr.  Williams  if  the  possession  of  that  particular  Chair 
was  necessary  to  interest  his  friends  in  the  Seminary  ;  and 
if,  indeed,  while  admitting  that  we  had  done  so  well,  they 
could  not,  now  that  "  slavery  was  dead,"  come  forward  and 
co-operate  with  us  in  the  great  work  of  carrying  forward 
this  Institution.  lie  remarked  that  he  was  glad  I  had  in- 
troduced the  conversation — regretted  it  had  not  taken  place 
sooner — would  see  whether  anything  further  could  be  done — 
there  was  still  sufficient  time  to  see,  as  nothing  would  be  done 
by  the  Committee  for  some  days — would  let  me  know,  but 
thought  Dr.  Rice  need  hardly  be  thought  of  further,  while 
Dr.  McMaster^  who  would  probably  be  preferred  to  Dr.  Lord, 
would  also  be  supported  by  endoicment,  if  elected.  I^ext  day 
he  remarked,  on  meeting  me,  that  Dr.  Mc^NIaster  would  be 
elected ;  and  the  same  day  the  Committee  reported. 

The  nine  Directors  referred  to  opposed  the  election  of  a 
fourth  Professor  at  this  time.  They  were  old  Directors, 
representing  the  views  of  those  who  had  sustained  the 
Seminary.  They  opposed  the  election  on  the  grouiul  that 
there  was  still  a  material  deficiency  of  funds  for  its  support. 


4P^ 


INDEX. 


Page. 

C.  H.  McCormick's  letter  to  N'.  W.  Presbyterian .  .  3 
Committee's  letter  to  C.  H.  McCormick     .         .         .  4 

C.  H.  McCormick's  reply  to  Committee         ...       4 

Editorial  from  the  I^esbyter 12 

J.  L.  Williams's  letter  to  N.W.  Presbyterian  .  .13 
Editorial  from  the  Presbyter      .         .         .         .         .         16 

Dr.  Lord  to  Mr.  McCormick 17 

C.  H.  3IcCormick's  reply  to  J.  L.  Williams       .         .         30 

Do.  do.     to  Dr.  Lord  .         .         .         .33 

Do.  letter  to  Dr.  Rice         ...         48 

Dr.  Rice's  letter  to  C.  H.  McCormick   .         .         .         .48 

Dr.  Lord  to  Mr.  McCormick 52 

W.  B.  Tnaax's  card  to  JVl  W.  Presbyterian  .         .55 

Hon.  J.  W.  Brockenbroiigh's  article  from  Va.  Gazette  56 
C.  H.  McCormick's  reply  to  Dr.  Lord's  rejoinder.  .  60 
Rev.  T.  V.  Moore  to  Dr.  Lord  from  JV.  W.  Presbyte- 


rian 


Dr.  Junkin's  article  from  the  Presbyterian  Panner  .     .  69 
C.  H.  McCormick's  original  proposition  to  the  Assem- 
bly of  1859 75 

Dr.  Monfort  to  C.  H.  McCormick 11 

C.  H.  IMcCormick's  reply  to  Dr.  Monfort  .         .         .  T8 

Editorial  from  X.  W.  Presbyterian,  May  8,  1869.         .  81 

Dr.  Monfort  to  C.  H.  McCormick        ....  90 
C.  IL  McCormick's  Address  to  the  General  Assembly, 

at  St.  Louis,  in  186G       .         .         .         .         .         .92 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 

207IM7  C001 

IMPORTANT  CORRESPONDENCE,  CONCERNING  T 


